HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.04.2008 in O.P.No.17 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (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 petitioners before the tribunal is that on 16.10.2006 the petitioner and another person were going on a Hero Honda motorbike bearing No.AP-22-K-8808 on Court Duty to serve summons and while on the way, at around 7:30 p.m., when they were near Vetro Tex Company on NH-7 in Thimmapur Limits an Eicher Van bearing No.AP-12-V-5472 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike from behind, due to which the petitioner and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to hospital, for treatment, he sustained permanent disability and thus, claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have 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 by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company that the driver of the crime vehicle did not bear valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

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

i) “Whether the accident occurred on 16.10.2006 was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-22-V-5472?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to iii) To what relief?”

6. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

8. Heard the submissions of Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has awarded very meager amount towards compensation. He further argued that he has produced all the evidence to prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent by him, but the tribunal failed to appreciate the same. He further argued that the tribunal has not awarded any amount for the pain and suffering underwent by the petitioner and also that the petitioner was being shifted to Raghavendra Hospital, Rajendranagar and from there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital and thus, has incurred amount towards transportation charges and also during the period of recovery, the petitioner has incurred expenses for his extra- nourishment, attendant charges, but the tribunal failed to consider all these aspects and has not awarded any amounts under these heads. He therefore, prayed to consider the same and enhance the compensation.

10. 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?

11. POINT NO.1:

a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. He contended that the tribunal has granted meager amount and thus, prayed for enhancement.

b) In support of his case, the petitioner has filed Injury Certificate under Ex.A3 and the Medical Bills under Ex.A4.

c) A perusal of the Injury Certificate under Ex.A3 reveals that it is issued by Yashoda Hospital on 02.12.2006, wherein it is certified that the petitioner was admitted in Yashoda Hospital vide I.P.No.08509 as he sustained polytrauma w