HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional District Judge, F.T.C.II, Khammam (hereinafter referred as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.765 of 2003, dated 06.12.2007, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 28.04.2002. R-1 is the driver of the vehicle, R-2 is the owner of the lorry bearing No. AIL 2850 and R-3 is the insurer of the said lorry and the petitioner is the cleaner of the said vehicle. It is stated by the petitioner that on 28.04.2002, as per the directions of R-1, he was discharging duties under the subject lorry for setting wires when R-1 suddenly moved the lorry in a rash and negligent manner without taking any precautionary measures. As a result, the petitioner had sustained fracture to left leg femur and injuries to head, foot and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam, where he was treated for a period of two months and underwent operation on fracture part and inserted steel rods and also advised to take bed rest for one year. He was also taken treatment in a private hospital at Khammam he incurred a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards medical expenses etc. Further, the petitioner was assisted by two attendants during the course of treatment. Due to fracture, his left leg was shortened and deformity was caused. It is stated by the petitioner that prior to accident, he used to earn a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained, the petitioner became permanent disabled and unable to do his routine work. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AIL 285, as such, he filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against the respondents.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/driver of the lorry and respondent No.2/owner of lorry bearing No.AIL

2850 remained ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle, injuries sustained by the petitioner and the age and avocation of the injured. It is further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid license at the time of accident and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

(i) Whether Islavath Saida was injured in a motor accident occurred on 28.04.2002 due to fault of driving of lorry/Tipper bearing No.AIL 2850 by its driver/R.I ?

(ii) Whether the lorry/tipper No.AIL 2850 is owned by R-2 and was insured with R-3 on the date of accident? If so, what is the quantum of compensation payable to petitioner by the respondents jointly and severally?

(iii) To what relief?

7. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner/injured examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1/Copy of insurance policy was marked with consent.

8. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.34,265/- towards compensation on all heads together along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The petition against respondents 1 & 3 is dismissed. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a