THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MACMA.No.3817 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This Memorandum of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the MV Act, 1988) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.39 of 2001 dated

16.05.2005.

2. Appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein are the respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the O.P.No.39 of 2001. 3.1. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

3.2. It is stated in the O.P. that on 18.02.1999 at about 05.00 P.M appellant-petitioner was driving the van bearing No.AP25/T- 5251 from Metpally towards Armoor on the highway No.16, by the time the van reached Rajeshwarraopet village on Metpally to Armoor road, another van bearing No.AP15/U-2831 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner at high speed and colluded with each other in the middle of the road due to which, the appellant-petitioner sustained fracture injuries to his right thigh at two places, injuries to head, both hands and other parts of the body. Appellant-petitioner was first admitted at Government hospital, Metpally and then he was shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad and was treated by Dr.L.Ramulu and Dr.T. Narsing Rao and other team of doctors. Appellant-petitioner sustained permanent disability, he has incurred Rs.60,000/- for his treatment and he was a driver and earning Rs.3000/- per month. Due to the said injuries and fractures, the appellant-petitioner became completely bedridden and he requires further operation. The age of the petitioner is 25 years at the time of accident.

4. Respondent No.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter and denied the manner in which the accident took place and contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

6. Respondent No.4 filed counter and they also denied the manner in which the accident took place and also denied the age and avocation of the petitioner.

7. Learned Tribunal basing on the pleadings of the parties has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of

Vans bearing Nos.AP-15/U-2831 and AP-25/T-5251 by its drivers?

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

3) To what relief?

8. Appellant-petitioner is examined as PW-1 and also got examined PW2-Dr.L.Ramulu and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and Ex.X1. Respondent No.2 has got examined RW-1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5.

9. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has awarded an amount of Rs.63,000/- to the appellant-petitioner payable by respondent No.1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of the petition.

The petition against respondent Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, and the Court below ought to have seen that the appellant-petitioner is suffering with 58% permanent partial disability due to the accident and learned Tribunal ought to have granted a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation instead of granting a compensation of Rs.63,000/- and the interest ought to have been awarded @ 12% per annum instead of @ 9% per annum and prayed to allow the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner submits that respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained exparte before the learned Tribunal and they are not necessary parties to the appeal.

12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 submits that no interference is called for in the appeal as the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and ri