THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.12.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.1765 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X 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 27.03.2013 at about 10:00 hours, while the petitioner-Avula Ramulamma was crossing the road leading to Saroornagar from Dilsukhnagar by walk, a person coming on Honda Activa bearing No.AP-29BQ-8762 has driven it at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and dashed the petitioner as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Sai Sanjeevani Hospital for treatment. She incurred huge medical expenditure. Thus, she claimed 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 rider of the bike did not possess valid driving license and that 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 pleaded accident on 27.03.2013 at about 10:00 hours was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle i.e., Honda Activa Vehicle bearing No.AP- 29-BQ-8762 and whether the petitioner received injuries in the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, to what quantum and whether crime vehicle was owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2 and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?”

7. To prove her case, the claimant got examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Sheshidhar, learned counsel representing Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner suffered a lot due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, but the tribunal has granted a meager amount of compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-. He argued that the disability certificate is not considered by the tribunal while the petitioner has sustained 30% disability due to the fracture of ankle, but the same is not taken into consideration, while awarding compensation. He further argued that the age of the petitioner is only 40 years, while the tribunal has considered her age to be 48 years which is not proper. He submitted that though the disability certificate disclosed 30% disability, the petitioner being a labourer cannot work anymore with her fractured ankle and thus has prayed to award 100% functional disability. He further has submitted that the tribunal has awarded meager amount under the heads pain and suffering, incidental expenses and loss of earnings. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner underwent treatment only for three days and that there is no particular procedure that was followed by the Doctor while issuing the disability certificate, it is not issued by the District Medical Board, but it is issued by a Private doctor. Hence has prayed not to consider the same. He further submitted that no income proof was filed by the petitioner and hence the tribunal has rightly assessed the