THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.271 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short (‘the Act, 1988’) being unsatisfied with compensation awarded under Award and decree, dated 15.05.2019, M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2015 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2014 at about 9:30 AM., while the claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle from Kaghaznagar to Mancherial and when he reached AC Corner road near ACC Chowrastha, Mancherial, all of a sudden one TATA Vista Car bearing No.AP-01-AB-9909 driven by respondent No.1 came from wrong side in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed his motorcycle, resulting which the claimant fell down on the ground and sustained crush injury to his left lower limb, fracture to right tibia, injury on frontal region, injury on root, nose and injuries to all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial and from there he was shifted to Orchid Hospital, Karimnagar, where he admitted as inpatient and doctors conducted several tests and debridement and external fixation was done and thereafter he was discharged on 10.01.2015 with an advice to take bed rest and to follow up treatment. Due to non-healing of injury of his right tibia, the claimant again admitted in the said hospital and doctors conducted surgical operation and interlocking nail tibia of right leg and skin grappling was done and discharged on 13.02.2015 with an advice to take bed rest and to follow up treatment. He incurred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

towards medical expenses.

4. Based on the complaint, the police Mancherial registered a case in Crime No.459 of 2014 and filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years, he was hale and healthy and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month as a Fisherman. Due to the said accident, the claimant was not able to attend his regular and routine works and he has incurred financial problems and mental agony. Hence, the claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under all heads.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the matter and remained ex parte.

6. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter-

affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition including the age, avocation and income of the claimant and also the manner of the accident. It is stated that the driver of TATA Vista Car bearing No.AP-01-AB-9909 is not having valid and effective driving licence, which is violation of policy conditions, hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated in the counter that there is non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., the insurer and owner of motorcycle on which the claimant was proceeding as the accident took place due to head and collision between the motorcycle and the Car, hence, they are proper and necessary parties to the petition. It is further stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive exorbitant as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues “1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the claimant Nikhil Mallick @ Mallick Nikhil due to rash and negligent manner and high speed driving of Car bearing AP-

01-AB-9909 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?”

8. During the course of enquiry, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and also got