THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (hereinafter ‘‘Tribunal” for brevity) in M.V.O.P.No.10 of 2014 by order and decree dated 07.02.2020, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) from respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 09.06.2013, the petitioner along with others were proceeding to Suryapet for attending a function in a Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.AP-25-AQ-1512; while so, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and when they reached Thirumalagiri Mandal outskirts near Eedulaparre Thanda, at about 15:00 hours, some goats suddenly came across the road due to which the driver of the vehicle applied sudden breaks and the vehicle turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates sustained injuries. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Metro Hospital, Suryapet, where she underwent treatment for one day and on 10.06.2013, she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad where she underwent treatment as inpatient from 10.06.2013 till 17.06.2013 and the petitioner was operated in the said Hospital. Based on a complaint, the Police, Thirumalagiri Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.62 of 2013 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the said vehicle.

4. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 50 years and was engaged in milk business and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of zygomatic bone on left side, grievous injuries on face, blunt injury on chest and abdomen, fracture on ribs, injuries on both hands and legs, head injury, and also suffered multiple and grievous injuries on various parts of the body, and as such, the petitioner lost her earnings during the period she was undergoing treatment. It is further stated that the petitioner had spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment and medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- for transportation, and she further incurred expenses of Rs.50,000/- towards other expenses including extra nourishment; the petitioner also sought a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.1,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and averments of the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. It is further stated that the petitioner is not a third party and the policy does not cover the risk of the persons who were travelling in the crime vehicle. Furthermore, the occurrence of accident was not reported by the insured on the date of accident and also concerned police has not sent any information regarding the alleged accident to respondent No.2 in Form No.54 under Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Bolero vehicle bearing No.AP-25-AQ-1512 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation on account of injuries and fractures sustained in the above ac