THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 29.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.74 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, Jagtial (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 16.11.2007 at 8:00 p.m., while the petitioner was going from Chelgal Village to Mothe Village on Motor Bike bearing No.AP-15- B-9756 and when he was passing by the road in front of the house of Ex-Sarpanch of Chelgal village, one Tractor bearing No.AP-15-X- 5857 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came in opposite direction, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained fracture injuries. He underwent treatment and incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3-TSRTC filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured-petitioner. He further contended that the driver of the tractor did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the vehicle does not have an effective R.C and thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6) Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident was caused on Motor Vehicle Accident on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-15-X-5857 by respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P90 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 got examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.5,52,354/- Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the petitioner was running a Water Servicing Centre and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has assessed the earnings of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.5,000/-. He further argued that the petitioner has sustained 74% of disability, but the Tribunal has erroneously taken it as 45% for assessing the loss of earning capacity and that the Tribunal has not added future prospects and has awarded meagre amounts under various heads. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has passed orders with good reasoning and that proof of income is not filed by the petitioner and even in the absence of proof, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- which is fair enough and therefore, has prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal.

11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:-

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

12. Point No.1:

a) The petitioner has stated that he suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Ex.P4 is the Injury Certificate filed by the petitioner,

it is issued by the Duty Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Jagtial on 20.11.2007. It discloses that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries i.e., one lacerated wound on the scalp and contusion on the left leg, fra