THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated

03.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC), Mancherial (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal is that on 29.07.2013 at about 6:00 p.m., while the petitioner was going towards ACC Mancherial, on his motor bike bearing No.AP1P-3789, when he reached near Laxmi Theatre at Mancherial, a Lorry bearing No.MH14AS-9277 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner from behind, as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Area Hospital, Mancherial and from there to Renee Hospital, Karimnagar for better treatment. He incurred huge medical expenditure, and thus he claimed a compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 29.07.2013 at about 06:00 p.m., near Laxmi theatre, Mancherial?

2. Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.MH-14-AS-9277?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so, how much and which of the respondents?

4. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.A1 to A12 , Ex.X1 and X2, Ex.C1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,38,107/-. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.649 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company and MACMA.No.621 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.

9. Heard the submissions of Smt. V. Durga, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimant is aged 30 years and was working as a Commission agent and was earning around Rs.9,800/- per month, while the tribunal has assessed his income to be very low and has granted meager amount of compensation. He further argued that the petitioner sustained 68% permanent disability, but the tribunal failed to consider the said aspect while awarding the compensation. He therefore, prayed to consider the said aspects and enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner failed to file any proof of income before the tribunal and that the commission alleged to have been earned by the petitioner to an extent of Rs.9,800/- per month need not be taken into consideration, as it cannot be constant every month. She further submitted that the disability of 68% is not supported by any document and that it is only temporary in nature and therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. She further argued that the rate of interest granted by the tribunal is very high and prayed to reduce the same to 7.5%. She further argued that the tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads without any reason. She therefore, prayed to reduce the compensation.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reas