HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

JUDGMENT

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree, dated 27.09.2014 passed in O.P.No.800 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 23.09.2011. It is stated that on that day, the appellant was proceeding from Pervala to Kothapally Village on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 24 L 5230 and when he reached the outskirts of Pervala Village, one Auto bearing No.AP 24 W 4747 coming from Kothapally to Pervala Village and dashed the motorcycle of the appellant. As a result of which, the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident the appellant was shifted to Government Hospital, Deverakonda. Basing on a complaint lodged before the Police a crime was registered against the driver of the auto. It is also stated that due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, his right leg was fractured and he sustained 45% permanent disability. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1^st respondent and as the vehicle was insured with the 2^nd respondent, the claim petition came to be filed making both of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

3. The 1^st respondent remained ex parte, while the 2^nd respondent filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim-petition.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1) Whether the injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of auto bearing No.AP

24 W 4747?

2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 besides examining the Doctor, who treated the appellant, as PW.3 and the doctor, who issued the disability certificate as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3.

6. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the auto was responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.3,70,600/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. He further submits that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and Ex.A-10, Disability Certificate, amply established that the appellant had sustained 45% permanent disability as his right leg was stiffened and he could not bend his right leg and it is very difficult for him to do his labour work, but the Tribunal without considering the age and avocation of the appellant, has erroneously taken the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- and, therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

8. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 1^st respondent/owner of the crime vehicle.

9. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference.

10. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.

11. The short question that arises for consideration is “whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable”?

12. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined himself as