THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 02.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.370 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), 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 02.08.2012 at about 5:30 p.m., the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-29-TW.T/R.2805 and when he reached near Huda Sai Nagar, one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-29-TA-2131 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motor bike of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple fractures. Immediately, he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital. He incurred huge medical expenditure and thus, claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further contended that the owner and insurer of the motor bike are also necessary parties and that the petition is bad for their non-joinder.

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 driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-29-TA-2131 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 his case, petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.7,36,789/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Vasanth Rao, learned counsel for the Insurance Company. None appeared on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner has not filed any proof of income, but the tribunal has assessed the income to Rs.8,000/- which is very high. He further argued that the Doctor who is examined as PW2 is not competent to issue disability certificate, as he is not a Member of the District Medical Board. Therefore, the disability aspect should not be considered in the present case. He further argued that the tribunal granted huge amount of compensation and has therefore, prayed to reduce the same.

11. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the compensation granted by the tribunal is just and reasonable?

3. Whether the order and decree of the tribunal need any interference?

4 To what relief ? 12. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the appellant’s counsel is that the tribunal has granted huge compensation, without any proof filed by the petitioner.

b) The case of the petitioner is that he used to work as Electrician and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In support of his contention, he filed Ex.A9, wherein his name figures as a Contractor that he is a Registered Contractor under the Government of Andhra Pradesh for Class-II (Electrical) Contractor. Thus, he could establish that he is a Registered Contractor doing electrical works, but still the appellant contends that he has not filed any proof that he was really taking up the contracts and earning out of the same. The petitioner has also produced Identity Card under Ex.A10, which reveals that he is a Class-II Contractor of Electrical Works under