HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 25.04.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.669 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar (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 petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 18.11.2010 the petitioner along with one Pinjar Khaja was proceeding to Jadcherla from Sri Rangapur Village on a motor bike bearing No.AP-22-AA-3166 and at about 7:00 p.m., when they were proceeding on NH-7 in the limits of Pebbair Village, one Ford Icon Car bearing No.AP-27-S-5679 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, coming in the opposite direction, dashed against the motor bike, due to which the petitioner and pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner incurred huge expenditure towards treatment and thus claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the crime vehicle is insured with respondent No.2, and thus in case if this Court awards any compensation, it is only respondent No.2 who has to be made liable.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle does not have valid driving license, and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the owner and insurer of motor bike are also necessary parties and that the petition is bad for non-joinder of the said parties.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) “Whether the accident dated 18.11.2010 in which the petitioner by name Md. Liyakath Ali sustained injuries occurred due to negligent

driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP27 S5679?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what and

from which respondents?

3) To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 4, Exs.A1 to A15 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,18,500/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that the tribunal had granted very low amount of compensation. He further argued that the petitioner has filed proof of his income vide Ex.A7/Salary Certificate, inspite of the proof, the tribunal has awarded low amounts towards compensation. He further argued that the tribunal has granted very meager amounts under various heads including the medical expenses and that the tribunal has not considered the disability sustained by the petitioner, while awarding compensation. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. He further argued that the tribunal has held 50% contributory negligence on part of the petitioner, but that the crime record does not disclose the said fact. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was negligent in causing the accident. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the award and further, prayed to consider the aspect of physical disability sustained by the petitioner and enhance the compensation.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly held that there is 50% contributor