THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal assails the correctness of the Judgment and Award passed by the III Additional District Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Karimnagar in MVOP No.899 of 2012, dated 17.01.2019.

2.1. It is contended in the claim petition that on 05.05.2005 in the late hours, the petitioner and his friend by name Krishna were going towards Kaman at Karimnagar on TVS Victor bearing No.AP-15-N-816 driven by the petitioner, when they reached opposite to Kalabharathi at about 12.30 night, respondent No.1 was driving Bajaj Auto Trolley/pick up Van bearing No.AP-15-W-8987 with load of vegetables in high speed. The driver of the Bajaj Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner due to which he fell down on the road. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar from there to Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences and operation was conducted by two Doctors on right thigh and external fixtures were fixed, he was discharged on 23.05.2005. Petitioner was again admitted in the said Hospital on 01.07.2005, underwent another operation and external fixtures were removed and plaster of paris was applied for 45 days to his right leg, he was discharged on 04.07.2005. After six weeks, the plaster of paris was removed and Doctors advised the petitioner for further bed rest.

2.2. Petitioner took bed rest for one year, he suffered knee stiffness due to fracture of right leg and moved with a walker and he also took treatment at KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad as out-patient. The petitioner was hale and healthy and unmarried prior to the accident, aged about 25 years, he was active in business by running a Tea stall and Bakery and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month. Due to the fracture of his right leg, he was unable to bend his leg and his movements became stiff and his leg is shortened. The injury resulted permanent disability of 60% in the right knee which is certified by the Medical Board. Petitioner has to undergo operation for skin grafting and it requires Rs.50,000/-, surgery for removal of implants which requires Rs.30,000/-. In total the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1 is set ex parte before the Tribunal.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the claim petitioner. Respondent No.1 was driving his vehicle in a normal speed and was on the left side. The rider of the motor-cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Auto and there is no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is having valid driving license and respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that the accident might have taken place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the TVS Victor as there was no collusion between the two vehicles, the compensation if granted may be restricted to the extent of negligence on the part of the Auto Trolley pick up Van. The owner of the vehicle has not informed respondent No.3 about the accident. The compensation claimed is high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues :

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending motor vehicle i.e., Bajaj Auto trolley/Pick up Van bearing No.AP-15-W-8987 driven by its driver?

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

3. To What relief?

7. Claimant is examined as PW.1, also examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 are examined, Exs.B1 and B2 are marked.

8. The Trial Court after conclusion of the evidence has allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos.1 to 3 granting compensation of Rs.3,69,540/- (Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges + Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment + Rs.52,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.10