THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act – Cum – V Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2017, dated 05.10.2018, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.02.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2017 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Eicher Van. It is contended that on 12.02.2016, the petitioner was proceeding towards Khanapur from Nirmal town on a motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-EE-9828 and when he reached near Voddepally Village, the driver of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-02-W-8779 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner’s motorcycle from behind, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries, fracture on head and suffered fractures of two legs and other injuries on the other parts of the body. The petitioner was taken to Area Hospital, Nirmal for treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2016 under Section 337 and

338 of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that prior to the accident, the petitioner used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per year by attending agricultural operation and due to accident, the petitioner sustained fractures all over the body and suffered total disability and petitioner was completely bed ridden and also incurred huge expenditure for the treatment and claimed an amount of Rs.15,10,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 – Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the injuries caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. In support of the petitioner’s case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. On behalf of the respondents none examined but Ex.B1- Copy of Insurance Policy was marked

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,05,280/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner, that the petitioner used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per year and due to accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitioner unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that petitioner has lost his future prospect, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the a