THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.11.2020 in O.P.No.1048 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (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 was that on 21.03.2008 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner was going along with the pillion rider on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-24R-5052 from Chityal towards Gandorigudem and when they reached Sri Raghavendra Petrol Bunk at Vattimarthy Village, one Lorry bearing No.AP-29U-2898 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and tried to overtake another vehicle and dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result the petitioner and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narkatpally and from there to Kamineni Hospital, L.B Nagar for better treatment. He incurred huge expenditure and sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 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 Lorry was not holding valid driving license. Hence, 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 accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-29U-2898?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A19. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,91,600/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner sustained 40% disability, but the tribunal has granted low amount towards loss of earning capacity. He further argued that the petitioner is a driver, earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but the tribunal has considered the income to be Rs.4,500/- per month which is very low. He further submitted that the tribunal has failed to consider the loss of future prospects of the petitioner and has awarded very meager amount towards compensation. He further submitted that the tribunal has awarded very low amounts under various heads to which the petitioner is entitled. He further argued that the Tribunal has granted low rate of interest @ 6%, hence, he prayed to enhance the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that though the Doctor has deposed that 40% disability is sustained by the petitioner, it is a temporary nature and the renewal of driving license of the petitioner shows that he has not lost any earning capacity and thus, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. He further argued that the petitioner failed to file any income proof and therefore Rs.4,500/- per month assessed by the tribunal is very reasonable and therefore, prayed to uphold the decision of the tribunal.

12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhanceme