THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A. No.483 OF 2020

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2015, the 3^rd respondent therein/Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.02.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata van bearing No.AP-01- X-9595. It is stated that the petitioner was working as labour for loading and unloading the goods and on 25.02.2014, after loading cotton in van at Boppapur Village, the petitioner was proceeding in that van for unloading it and when the van reached Godruguda Village, the driver of that van drove it in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the van dashed to a bridge and as a result, the van turned turtle and the petitioner suffered fracture involving proximal shaft of femur involving adjacent lesser trochanta, injury over frontal region of head and injuries on other parts of his body. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital, Utnoor and later, he was shifted to RIMS, Adilabad, where, Dr. Tippe Swamy, Orthopedic Surgeon conducted surgery on 24.03.2014 and fixed the fracture with implants and was discharged on 04.04.2014 with an advise to take follow up treatment. It is stated that the claimant incurred Rs.50,000/- expenses for treatment, medical expenses, etc. The Police, Narnoor registered a case in Cr.No.11 of 2014 under Sections 337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the TATA Van.

4. According to the claimant, he was aged about 35 years and was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a labour at the time of accident and due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he not only incurred medical expenses but also suffered permanent disability. Therefore, he has filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not file any counter. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of accident, rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1, nature of injuries, treatment taken by the claimant, expenditure incurred for the treatment, age, income and occupation of the claimant and contended that the claimant was not working as coolie on the van as claimed, but was unauthorized passenger and hence, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay him any compensation and further contended that respondent No.2, the owner of the van violated the terms of policy conditions and prayed this Court to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Based on the pleadings of both sides, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

i) Whether the accident dated 25.02.2014 was due to the rash and negligent driving of TATA van bearing No.AP.01.X.9595 or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions and the entire material placed on record, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.58,259/- with an interest @ 9% per annum. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount