- (1.)The claimant in M.V.O.P.No. 448 of 1996 on the file of I Additional District Judge cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Guntur, filed this appeal having not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by her in the accident that has taken placed on 22-09-1994.
(2.)The facts of the case are that the appellant is aged about 22 years and was earning her livelihood by attending to collie work on a remuneration of about Rs./30/- per day. On the fateful day to go to the work place from Inavolu to Gundlakamma vagu bridge construction work she got into the tractor of the contractor and perhaps while she was alighting from the tractor at the work place the driver of the tractor suddenly drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and with the result the appellant fell down from the tractor and the trailer of the tractor ran over her body. She was treated as an inpatient for three months in Guntur General Hospital for the injuries sustained by her due to the overrun of the trailer attached to the tractor. Thereafter she filed claim petition estimating the damages as hereunder: For pain and suffering and agony Rs. 15,000/-, for loss of expectancy of life and for loss of amenities and support Rs. 10,000/-, for grievous injuries to the left leg Rs. 10,000/-, for loss of earning capacity and earnings Rs. 60,000/- and for medicines, attendant and special diet Rs. 3,000/-. In all, she claimed Rs. 98,000/-, but restricted her claim to Rs. 50,000/-.
(3.)The first respondent remained exparte. The Insurance Company filed a written statement stating that the petitioner has to prove the mode and manner of accident, nature of injuries, loss of income and other aspects. It is also their case that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the first respondent, but she herself is responsible in receiving injuries as she tried to cross the road grossly without observing the traffic rules and hit the vehicle resulting in injuries. To prove their case, while the petitioner got herself examined as P.W. 1, the Civil Surgeon who treated her in the Government hospital was examined as P.W.2 and Exs. A-1 to A-5 were marked, i.e., Ex. A-l - certified copy of the FIR, Ex. A-2 - certified copy of wound certificate, Ex. A-3 - certified copy of charge sheet, Ex. A-4 - O.P. Chit and Ex. A-5 - case sheet. The Senior Assistant in the office of the Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and Junior Assistant in RTOs office was examined as R.W. 2 on behalf of the respondents to prove that the weight of the tractor is above 7.500 Kgs. and as such the driver of the vehicle who is holding a light motor vehicle driving licence cannot drive the vehicle. On their behalf Exs. B-1 - copy of the policy, and Ex. B-2 - endorsement of Additional Licensing Authority. Narasaraopet on the driving licence were marked and the Extract of driving licence was marked as Ex. X-1.