THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) by the claim petitioner arising out of an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in MVOP.No.2087 of 2015 dated 18.09.2020, for enhancement of compensation.

2. Appellant-petitioner has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the injuries caused to her in the accident.

3. On 19.01.2015 the appellant – petitioner along with others started proceeding from Hyderabad towards Godawarikhani in a TATA Venture Omni bearing registration No.AP-15-AZ-4747. On 20.01.2015 at about 03.30 a.m. when they reached near Gayathri Temple, which is located on the outskirts of Kondapak Village, Medak District, the driver of the vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the left side culvert- railing of the road, due to which, the vehicle turned turtle and the appellant - petitioner and others who were present in the vehicle received grievous injuries. Police Kukunoorpally registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle in which the appellant - petitioner was travelling. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer. At the time of accident, appellant-petitioner was aged about 20 years and prayed to allow the O.P.

4. Respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal but did not choose to contest the matter by filing counter.

5. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter and contended that it is the appellant-petitioner who has to prove that the vehicle involved in the accident was having valid insurance policy, onus lies on the appellant-petitioner to prove the manner of accident and that the driver of the crime vehicle is not holding valid driving licence at the time of the alleged accident and he violated the conditions of the policy and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Venture Omni bearing registration No.AP 15AZ 4747 causing injuries to the petitioner?

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

3) To what relief?

7. Appellant was examined as PW1, got examined PW2-Syed Awais Ahmed, PW3-Dr.Vamshee Mohan, PW4-Dr.M.Sivaram and PW5-A.Venkata Subbaiah. Respondent No.2 did not lead evidence but got marked Ex.B1-Insurance Policy.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence let in by the parties and perusing the documents thereon partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9%per annum from the date of petition (21.09.2015) till realization holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount within one month from the date of the award.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for by the appellant-petitioner, also failed to see that the appellant was working as a tailor and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, failed to award compensation towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, also erred in not considering the medical bills though proved by PW5 and that the appellant has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident and also failed to award compensation for loss of quality of life and future marriage prospects. In support of her contentions, she has relied on the decision in the case of Siddigari Pentaiah Vs. R.Pandu and Anr.¹ and prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the