THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 05.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.910 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI 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 27.04.2013 at about 12:00 noon, the petitioner was going as a pillion rider, while her husband was riding the motor bike bearing No.AP-24-L-8719 from Chevella towards Shabad side, when they reached Shabad X roads, in the mean time, the driver of Maruthi 800 bearing No.AP-09-AF-4532 has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and dashed their motor bike, and she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Chevella and that she incurred more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical treatment. Thus, she claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-.

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

5. The respondent No.2 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 the driver of the Maruthi Car does not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident 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 accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of car bearing No.AP-

09-AF-4532 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation.

If so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the claimant got examined PWs.1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A12, X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,73,200/-. 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 A.V.K.S Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal has granted a very low amount towards injuries and that the petitioner is a Labourer, and thus cannot work any further due to the injuries suffered by him. He further submitted that the petitioner has filed Ex.A6/Disability Certificate showing 40% disability, but the petitioner is incapacitated to do any work and thus 100% functional disability may be awarded as he used to work as a labourer. He further argued that the tribunal has considered the income to be very low and has awarded meager amounts under various heads. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the disability certificate cannot be believed, and that the accident occurred in 2013, while the disability certificate is issued in 2015. He further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation and that there is no need for 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 need any interference ?

3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1:-

a) The case of the claimant is that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation and thus, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

b) To prove her case, she got examined herself and also PWs 2 to PW5. It is asserted by PW1/T. Mariyamma that she sustained grievous injuries in the accident and suffered acute pain and suffering and has also suffered 40% disabi