THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of Order and Decree dated

26.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that on 08.12.2014 at about 5:30 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on his motor bike bearing No.TS-08-EA-3604 and when he reached near Meena Hospital, Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad, driver of one lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-2143 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which he fell down and sustained fracture injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he underwent inpatient treatment. The petitioner suffered a lot due to the injuries and was bedridden and that he is aged 32 years and lost his future amenities. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

4) The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the occurrence of the accident and also averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and also with regard to medical expenditure.

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

1. Whether the injuries sustained by J. Naresh is Motor Accident occurred on 08.12.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of Crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-

2143?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, how much and from whom? 3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and X1 to X8. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined, and got marked Ex.B1.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- . Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company and Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation as the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal has granted huge compensation under various heads. He further contended that the petition itself is bad for non- joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike, as the said vehicle was also involved in the said accident. He therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the earnings of the injured-petitioner and that it has not awarded future prospects and the Tribunal failed to observe that the claimant was terminated from employment following the injuries sustained in the accident. He further argued that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 25% which is proved by the evidence of PW3, but the Tribunal has not considered the same. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation by considering all the aspects.

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

1. Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-2143 was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. T o what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the driver of the lorry bearing No.TS-08-EA-3604