THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Miryalguda, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2014, dated 29.06.2019, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 17.11.2010.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the lorry. It is contended that on 17.11.2010, the petitioner who was a cleaner to the lorry was sitting in the cabin and when the lorry reached the outskirts of Dubba Thanda Matoor Village, the petitioner tried to push the electrical wires coming across the lorry, with the help of a stick and then, the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner as a result he slipped and fell down from the cabin of the lorry and the tyres of the lorry ran over right leg of the petitioner, as a result petitioner sustained fractures and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Durga Shankar Hospital, Miryalaguda where the petitioner underwent surgery and was in patient for twenty days. The Police registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2010 against the driver of offending vehicle for the punishable offence under Section 338 of IPC.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner has undergone treatment for a period of 20 days and also conducted operation to the right thigh and steal rod has been inserted and thereafter rod was removed from the body of the petitioner. The petitioner was completely bed ridden for six months and also incurred huge expenditure in the hospital and due to accident, the petitioner is unable to walk freely either on road or on ladder and the petitioner is unable to lift heavy articles. As a result petitioners lost his cleaner job. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 – United India Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Lorry was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read as under:

i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to negligent driving of lorry No.ABK 3606 on 17.11.2010?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what is quantum and from whom?

iv) To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, PWs.1 & 2 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A12 on behalf of petitioner. None examined on behalf of respondents but Ex.B1-Insurance copy was marked.

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

8. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence in the proper way and contended that at the time of accident the petitioner was standing near the lorry and was lifting the electric wires with the help of wooden stick and then, the driver drove the lorr