THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 02.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (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 09.12.2014, when the petitioner was returning from Charlapally Village to Nalgonda Town on his motor bike bearing No.AP-24-AR- 5800 and while taking a turn at Marriguda bye pass road towards Nalgonda side, one Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636 proceeding from Panagal towards Hyderabad, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner fell down, sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nalgonda, from there he was shifted to Srilaxmi Hospital, Nalgonda and on the advise of doctor, he was referred to Sri Sai Neuro Super Specialty Hospital, at Kachiguda, Hyderabad. His case is that he incurred huge medical expenditure and thus, sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 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 he was not at all rash and negligent in driving the car and that he is not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle and thus, in case of any compensation awarded by the Court, it is only respondent No.3 who is liable to pay compensation.

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 he has sold the Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636 to Maruthi True Value on 25.08.2014 and in turn the said Maruthi True Value has sold the vehicle to respondent No.1 and by the date of accident, the car was already sold away. Therefore, he is noway concerned to the present case.

6. The respondent No.3 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 Car was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?”

8. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.13,54,827/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard the submissions of Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner has suffered a lot due to traumatic paraplegia pursuant to the accident and that he has sustained severe spine injury. He further argued that the petitioner used to run a Cycle store and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month, but the tribunal has taken a meager amount of Rs.30,000/- per annum and thus, arrived at a very low amount of compensation. He further submitted that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 88% as stated by the District Medical Board. However, the petitioner is in vegeta