THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) assailing the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad (for short ‘Tribunal’), in O.P.No.166 of

2005 dated 22.04.2008.

2. Appellant herein is the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and

2 herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Appellant - petitioner has filed an application under Section 166(1)(a) of the MV Act and Rule 455 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.24,20,000/- but restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

4. On 25.09.2002 the appellant - petitioner along with others were travelling in the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-1-U-175 and they reached Mopal village shivar at about 03.00 p.m., the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-8655 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the auto rickshaw, due to which the auto rickshaw turned turtle. The appellant - petitioner and other inmates of the auto rickshaw sustained multiple and grievous injuries and he sustained fractures to his left shoulder clavicle, right thigh femur, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts of the body, he was shifted to government head quarters hospital, Nizamabad, later he took treatment in private nursing home and has spent Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses, still he is undergoing treatment with the private doctors. Appellant – petitioner was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. In total the appellant - petitioner has claimed Rs.24,20,000/- but he has restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,000/-.

5.1 Respondent No.1 – owner of the crime vehicle is set ex parte before the Tribunal.

5.2 Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied the accident, age, income and health condition of the appellant – petitioner, further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle and the OP is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., owner and driver of the auto rickshaw and there is a delay of five days in lodging the complaint before the police.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-8655 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. Appellant – petitioner is examined as PW1; PW2- Dr.T.Narsing Rao and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.2 did not led any evidence but got marked Ex.B1-insurance policy.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the appellant with that of the documents marked thereon, has partly allowed the OP by awarding compensation of Rs.45,000/- payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization of the award.

9.1 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to decide the quantum of compensation and instead of awarding Rs.2,00,000/- has awarded only Rs.45,000/-. The appellant has proved that he sustained fracture to left shoulder clavicle, fracture of right thigh femur and on other parts of the body. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the compensation amount, which is meager and prayed to allow the appeal.

9.2 Learned counsel for the appellant has filed calculation memo showing different heads under which the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,26,000/- .

10. It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that the respondent No.1 is not necessary party as he did not contest before the Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case a