HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.208 of 2016 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 17.02.2016 at 1:30 a.m., the petitioner while breaking coconut at Godavari river bridge at Godavarikani, one lorry bearing No.AP- 20X-5752 came in wrong side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her, due to which she sustained severe fracture injuries and she was taken to a local hospital for treatment, from there she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and while undergoing treatment, her left leg has been amputated above the knee and that her right ankle also got fractured her right toe was also amputated. Thus, she claimed a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

5. The Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the age, income and avocation of the injured-petitioner and also the manner in which the accident has occurred. They further contended that the claim is highly excessive and that the petitioner herself was negligent while crossing the road and contributed to the accident.

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

1) Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-20X-5752?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. The respondents got marked Ex.B1, while no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,84,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously granted huge amount towards compensation and that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the Doctor evidence in the absence of any other documents placed in that regard. The counsel has further argued that the petitioner failed to produce any medical bills to prove the medical expenses. Further the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence of the petitioner and he therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation.

11. The respondent counsel has failed to appear before this Court.

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

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the injured-petitioner in the occurrence of the accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and proper?

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

4. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1 :-

a) The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has granted excess compensation. The case of the petitioner is that she sustained injuries as she was hit by one lorry bearing No.AP-20X-

5752 while she was breaking coconut on the road side.

b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A2 reveal that the charge sheet is filed against the lorry driver, after thorough investigation by the Police, it reveals the manner in which the accident has occurred. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the petitioner along with several other persons went to Sammakka-Saarakka Jathara and while returning, they stopped their bus on the edg