HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No.199 of 2013, dated 14.10.2015, the claimant/petitioner in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-,with costs and interest at 18% per annum on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.09.2012. It is stated by the petitioner that on 23.09.2012 at about 4:30 P.M., when the petitioner was going on tractor bearing No. AP 24 TV TR 6307 from Nakrekal in order to go to Bollepalli village on National Highway No.65, on the extreme left side of the road and that on the way when it reached near NTR Nagar in the outskirts of Aitipamula Village, in the mean time, a lorry bearing No.AP 29 TA 1689 of respondent No.1 came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed from Vijayawada side and dashed the said tractor. As a result, the said tractor turned turtle. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and fractures.

4. It is stated by the petitioner that as on the date of accident, the deceased was aged 35 years and used to attend agricultural works and tractor driver and used to earn Rs.9,000/-per month. The petitioner is only earning member for his large family. On account of the injuries sustained by him, he took treatment in Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad and Focus Diagnostics, Champapeta, Hyderabad and took treatment about one month in the said hospitals as inpatient. He spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and he did not recover from the injuries. Therefore, the petitioner is claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-

against the respondents.

5. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, filed its counter stating that the accident did not occur in the manner alleged by the petitioner. The respondent specifically denies the petitioner’s age, income, avocation, and health condition. It is further contended that the petitioner did not sustain the injuries as alleged. The respondent also submits that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The petition is devoid of merits, and the claim is highly excessive. Therefore, prays that the petition be dismissed.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the petitioner received injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No.AP29 TA

1689?

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

(iii) To what relief?

8. During the course of trial before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked and Exs.C1 and C2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but a copy of insurance policy is marked as Ex.B1.

9. After considering the entire evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and they were directed to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of the order. On such deposit, petitioner was permitted to withdraw the entire amount awarded to him. Aggrieved b