HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A.No.630 of 2019 JUDGMENT:-

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated 04.08.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1615 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (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.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that occurred on 19.04.2009. It is stated that on that day, the appellant, along with others, were proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 36 W 3385 and when the said auto reached near Yashwantpur, near Bhuvana Gardens, one motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 AB T/R - 2842 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto and due to which the driver of the auto, who drove the auto in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same the auto was turned turtle and the appellant and other passengers in the auto sustained grievous injuries. Basing on a complaint a case in Crime No.130 of 2009 was registered against the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the auto. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon and from there shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, Jaya Hospital, Warangal and NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, and at NIMS Hospital, the right leg of the appellant was amputated below the knee. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the auto and respondent Nos.1 and 3 being the owners of the auto and motorcycle and respondent No.2 being the insurer of both the vehicles, the claim petition came to be filed making all of them jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

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

4. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the auto and the rider of the motorcycle were responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,88,800/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

5. 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 oral and documentary evidence reveal that the appellant had sustained 60% disability, thereby she is unable to do her labour work and has lost her income at Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Tribunal, without considering the same, has erroneously taken the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

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

7. 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. 8. 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 owners or insurers of both the vehicles.

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

10. A perusal of the material on record would show that as per the disability certificate, the appellant had sustained 60%

permanent disability as her leg was amputated below the knee and the same was certified by the doctor.

11. In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, th