HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTI CE TI RUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 11.12.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.1307 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (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 claim petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 01.02.2002, the petitioner was travelling in the auto bearing No.AP-25U-1259 at about 9.30 A.M. near the fruit market, Nizamabad, the auto turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. As a result, the petitioner sustained fractures and immediately he was taken to Maithri Hospital, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad, where he was admitted as inpatient andhe incurred expenditure of Rs.60,000/-. It is the case of the petitioner that he was a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and further denied its liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the auto driver and that auto driver does not have valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of auto No.AP-25-U-1259?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and against which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove his case, the petitioner got examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.44,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

8. Heard the submission of Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellantand Sri V. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation and that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and suffered a lot. He further submitted that the appellant filed medical bills and also the evidence of the doctor was adduced but the Tribunal has not taken the same into consideration and has awarded a very meagre amount. He also submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the earnings of the appellant. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the same.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

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

3. To what relief?

12. POI NT NO.1:

a) The appellant is aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is his case that he is a fruit vendor and that he used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month.

However, no proof is filed in this regard.

b) The accident pertains to the year, 2002, some amount of guess work has to be made based on a reasonable hypothesis to assess the income of the petitioner.

c) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance I nsurance Company Limited, 1(2011) 12 SCC 236, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income, but in the present case, the petitioner is a fruit vendor.

d) Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ram