THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1873 of 2014, dated 29.01.2020, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.06.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.1873 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata Ace Vehicle. It is contended that on 22.06.2014, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BM-3200 and when they reached near Prashanth Nagar Bus Stop, the driver of Tata Ace Vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TB-7778 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Prime Hospital, Kukatpally. The Police registered a case in Crime No.428 of 2014 against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of left little finger metacarpal, crush injury to left hand palm, polytrauma with facial injury to left upper limb, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body and petitioner was completely bed ridden and lost his job and also incurred huge expenditure and claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-

under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 – Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Tata Ace Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing No.AP-28-TB-7778, causing injuries to the petitioner?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner, that the petitioner was working as Pastor in a Church and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and due to accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitioner lost his job and was unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that claimants has lost his future prospect, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs.2,04,000/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries