THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

03.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.388 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court Additional District Judge (FTC), Karimnagar (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 07.11.2009 the petitioner along with another person went for collection of cotton crop from Indurthy to Gudem in an auto bearing No.AP-15-X-2014 and after attending their work, they were returning in the same auto to their village, while on their way at about 18:00 hours, when they reached the outskirts of Muthannapet Village, the driver of their auto has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-3794, as a result of which the petitioner received crush injury to her right leg. Immediately she was shifted to Apollo Reach Hospital and her right foot above the knee was amputated. Thus, she suffered 70% permanent disability and that her husband deserted her following the amputation. Thus, she claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 , 2, 4 and 5 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the material averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to the sole negligence of the driver of the auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-3794 as per the crime record and not due to the negligence of the auto bearing NoAP-15-X-2014 and that the owner and insurer of auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-3794 are liable to pay compensation if any, awarded by the Court. It is further contended that the driver of auto bearing No.AP-15-X-2014 does not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., Auto bearing No.AP-15-X-

AP-15-X-2014, driven by its driver/respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs

1 and 2 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- and fixed the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 5 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.467 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the liability and MACMA.No.561 of 2021 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Rama Chander Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.561 of 2021 and Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and for the appellant-Insurance Company in MACMA.No.467 of 2021.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and has awarded very low amount towards compensation. His contention is that the petitioner used to work as a labourer and suffered amputation above the knee which causes her 100% functional disability and the same has to be considered by awarding the loss of future earnings. He further argued that the tribunal failed to consider future prospects while awarding loss of future income. Further the Tribunal has erred by deducting amount from the annual income, which is not permissible in cases of permanent disability. He further argued that the petitioner has suffered huge loss in her life at the age of ‘28’ years. Having lost her limb, she also suffered d