HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

COMMON JUDGMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.155 of 2020 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved with the order and decree dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on the ground that the learned Tribunal granted exorbitant compensation to the injured claimant.

2. M.A.C.M.A.No.257 of 2020 is filed by the claim petitioner/injured being not satisfied with the compensation award vide order and decree dated 20.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’).

3. Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for the claim petitioner.

4. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

5. It is contended that the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- but the learned Tribunal after perusal of the entire record and considering the arguments of both sides awarded an amount of Rs.1,21,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.03.2013 at about 21.30 hours, while the petitioner was proceeding on the Tractor bearing No.AP-25-AA-4291 towards Narsingpally village as labourer under employment and on the instructions of respondent No.1 and when they reached at Thankurdh Canal area, the driver of Tractor droves at high speed and in rash negligent manner and lost his control over the vehicle, due to which, the Tractor turned turtle into the Thanakurdh canal and as a result of which, the petitioner fell down from the tractor and sustained multiple fractures and bleeding injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Multi Speciality, Nizamabad and there he took treatment as inpatient and he underwent major operations and a steel rod with screws were inserted into the left knee joint. Thereafter he was admitted in Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad, where he underwent another major operation and replaced with the separate steel plates and screws to the fracture and he spent Rs.3.5 lakhs towards treatment, medical expenditure.

7. It is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 35 years and was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a fisherman, labour and agriculture and due to injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, the sustained permanent disability and lost his future earnings and his amenities of life are affected. The respondent No.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 being its insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the tortuious acts of the tractor driver, which resulted in the injuries to the petitioner.

8. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the manner of accident, receiving injuries and expenditure incurred for healing of wounds. It is further contended that the alleged accident not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle and that the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving license and that the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, as such the respondent No.2/insurance company is only liable to pay compensation.

9. Respondent No.2 contended that the petition is filed under Sections 163-A and 166 (1) of the Act, which is not at all maintainable under the law and that the claim petitioner was not the labourer of respondent No.1, but he was illegally, unauthorizedly boarded the Tractor and gratuitously travelled as a passenger. As per the registration certificate, the seating capacity of the tractor is only one i.e, driver of the Tractor, there