HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2893 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, 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 is that on 17.10.2014 the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-22-N-6442 at about 8:30 hours from Gamapanapally Village towards Achampet along with one Mudavath Bichya as pillion rider and when they reached Uppupandu agricultural lands, one auto bearing No.AP-22-Y-8028 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner and the pillion rider fell down and sustained severe multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, they were shifted to Government Area Hospital. The petitioner was admitted as inpatient from 1710.2014 to 27.10.2014 at Ozone Hospitals, Kothapet, Hyderabad and that the petitioner sustained permanent disability and has incurred huge expenses. He claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

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 there was no negligence of the auto driver and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner himself.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:

i) “Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP-22-Y-8028 causing injuries to the petitioner?

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

iii) To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A18 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.8,15,100/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandra Mouli, 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 tribunal has granted meager amount of compensation. He further argued that the tribunal has not considered the disability of 52% sustained by the petitioner and that the said disability is proved by Ex.A6. He further argued that the earnings of the petitioner is taken to be very low by the tribunal and has granted very meager amount towards medical expenses and loss of future earnings. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the tribunal and to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal was right in granting the compensation by considering the entire evidence on record. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

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

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. PW3/Dr. Jalapathi Reddy who is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Ozone Hospital, he deposed with regard to the treatment at their hospital. He stated that Ex.A4 that is the discharge summary, Ex.A7/bunch of prescriptions and X-ray films filed under ex.A4 are issued by their hospital and that the petitioner purchased medicines as per h