THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 09.01.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.3096 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle 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 was that on 17.10.2014 at about 8:30 hours, the petitioner was going as a pillion rider on a motor bike bearing No.AP-22-N-6442 from Gampannapally Village towards Achampet and when they reached Uppupandu agricultural lands of Gampanapally Village, the 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, as a result the petitioner and the rider fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Achampet and he underwent inpatient treatment from 18.10.2014 to 24.10.2014. He incurred huge expenditure and further has lost his earnings. He therefore, sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

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

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 the driver of the auto did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:-

“1. 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?

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

3) To what relief?”

7. To prove their case, petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,89,433/-. Aggrieved by the said award, 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 petitioner is a rickshaw puller and that due to the accident, he suffered 57% disability to his leg, due to which he is not able to eke out his livelihood by pulling the rickshaw. He therefore, sustained 100% loss in his earning capacity and thus, prayed to consider the same and award loss of future earnings. He further argued that the tribunal has considered the income of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.3,000/- per month, and has prayed to take atleast Rs.4,500/- per month to be the income of the petitioner in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the rider of the auto did not have driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. He further argued that the petitioner has not filed any proof of income. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and also that the rider of the motor bike was attending to his phone call at the time of accident, thus, contributory negligence may be attributed to the rider of the motor bike. He therefore, submitted that the compensation granted by the tribunal itself is high and that there is no need to award any further enhancement of compensation.

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 enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal nee