THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief Judge, FAC XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (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 20.12.2016, while the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-15AQ-6356 from Theegalguttapalli Village to Choppadandi, at about 12:30 p.m., one Mahindra Van bearing No.TS02-UA-8984 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Prathima Hospital, for treatment. He incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying 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 crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

1. “Whether the petitioner/injured-M. Srinivas sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Van bearing No.TS-02-UA-8984?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1, B2 and Ex.X1, X2. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.21,84,298/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Samba Siva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned that the petitioner was removed from service from the society, and he has argued that the petitioner got filed two disability certificates, Ex.A8 discloses 70% disability while Ex.A9 discloses 65% disability, which causes suspicion on the evidence lead by the petitioner. He further argued that PW2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner was treated conservatively, which goes to show that the petitioner has not suffered any fracture injuries. He thus, prayed to reduce the compensation. He further submitted that the disability certificates filed by the petitioner are not supported by any X-rays or any other evidence. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has lost his job due to the disability sustained by him in the accident and that previously he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month and that they have also filed Salary Certificate before the tribunal. And now they have filed a letter issued by the Railway Co-operative Society, stating that he is removed from his job. He therefore, prayed to consider the earnings of the petitioner and prayed to enhance the compensation, though, they have not filed any appeal or Cross Objection.

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 reasonable?

2. Whether the Order and Decree pa