THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.NO.15 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 18.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.735 of 2016, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-(VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs.1,51,300/-

with interest @7.5% interest.

2. Heard Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. None appears for respondent No.1.

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

4. The brief facts of the case are that on

11.11.2016 at about 1:30 PM, the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, which was driven by one Sainath, and when they reached on the outskirts of Pothangal Village, in the meanwhile a Car bearing No.AP- 01-TV-0211 came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the claimant fell down and the front wheel of Car ran over her. Due to which, the claimant sustained fracture to her both legs, both knees, injuries on head, chest and other parts of the body. Immediately, after the accident, the claimant was shifted to RR Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad, where she underwent operation twice and steel rods were inserted and she incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. She further submitted that she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour work. After the accident, she is unable to move from the bed, cannot walk and attend her regular duties. She also sustained 100% permanent disability due to the said accident. She further stated that the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car belonging to the respondent No.1, which was insured with respondent No.2 and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to her.

5. Respondent No.1 filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation, incurring of medical expenses etc. He further stated that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is having valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, he prays to dismiss the claimant petition against him.

6. Respondent No.2 also filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation earning capacity, negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car. He further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the claim made by the claimant is excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the petition against him.

7. Before the Tribunal, claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. P.W.1 also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 who treated him at R.R. Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, except marked Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy.

8. Admittedly there is no dispute regarding the accident and the involvement of the vehicle i.e., Car bearing No.AP-01-TV-0211 in the said accident, belonging to respondent No.1, which was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of said Car. The only grievance of the appellant-clamant before this Court is that the compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. 9. Having heard Sri P.Ra