THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 by the Appellant/The National Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.2 against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Kothagudem, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2012, dated 26.06.2019, wherein the claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.03.2009.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.746 of 2012 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have occurred on 30.03.2009 when the petitioner was going to Khammam on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 36 S 1624 for attending his occupational works and after completion of work at Khammam while he was returning to Yellandu, he reached Seethrampuram village at about 1:00 p.m., the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 1117 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner, as a result the petitioner sustained server fracture injuries and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital at Yellandu, then the duty medical officer given first aid and thereafter the petitioner was shifted to Kinnera Super Speciality Hospital, Khammam and subsequently he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for a period of one month and after all clinical tests the doctor found that the petitioner sustained fracture of right frontal bone, fracture of right Maxillary bone, contusion 4x2 cm frontal bone, contusion 4x3 cms on right maxillary bone, contusion and abrasion 2x2 cm on above right eyebrow, exterior abrasion 16x4 right forearm, abrasion 3x2 cm right hand 10x4 cm on abdominal, 2 burns over left UL and right UL and trunk and multiple injuries all over the body and as such the petitioner has filed the M.V.O.P claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained exparte. respondent No.2 filed their counter affidavit denying their liability and also denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under:

“i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle – lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 1117 on 30.03.2009?

2. Whether the claim petitioner is entitled to claim any compensationif so, to what amount and form whom?

3. To what relief?”

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 U 1117 and hence answered the same in favour of the petitioner so also considering the age, occupation and income of the petitioner allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.11,56,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum making the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

7. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground among other grounds that the learned Tribunal has awarded excess amount of compensation of Rs.11,56,000/- as against t