JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short, 'the Act') is filed by the claimant
seeking enhancement of compensation,
aggrieved by the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of
IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada (for
short 'theTribunal below'), passed in M. V.O.P.
No.104 of 2000, dated 19-4-2004.
(2.)The said claim petition was filed by the
appellant herein under Section 166 of the Act
read with Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh
Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account
of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle
accident on 18-9-1999.
(3.)As stated in the claim petition, it was the
case of the claimant that he was working as
ajattu coolly in Koramandal Company Limited
at Kakinada. On 18-9-1999, while he was
returning along with other co-workers from
the Company and when they reached
Nadakuduru, the offending lorry bearing
No.ABK-144 was driven by its driver rashly
and negligently and dashed the claimant. It is
stated, in the said accident, he has suffered
multiple injuries and has taken lengthy
treatment on account of injuries suffered by
him and ultimately he suffered disability. The
compensation was claimed on account
injuries suffered by him, pain and suffering,
loss of future earnings in view of disability
etc. Respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner
of the lorry respectively, remained ex parte
before the Tribunal below. Respondent No.3,
Insurerof the lorry, has contested the matter.
While generally denying the allegations of
the claimant, it was the case of the insurer
that the compensation claimed was excessive
and exorbitant. With reference to the above
said pleadings, the Tribunal below has framed
the following issues for trial:
(1) Whether the accident took place due
to the rash and negligent driving of
the 1st respondent-Driver of lorry
ABK-144?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
the compensation, if so, what amount
and from which of the respondents?
(3) To what relief?
To prove the claim on behalf of the claimant,
he himself was examined as P.W.1 and the
doctor, who has treated him, was examined
as P.W.2 and another doctor, before whom
the claimant is still taking treatment, was
examined as P.W.3. Exs.A-1 to A-4 and X-1
and X-2 were marked on his behalf. On
behalf of respondent No.3, no oral evidence
was adduced, but a copy of the policy was
marked as Ex.B-1. Having regard to the oral
and documentary evidence on record, the
Tribunal below has recorded the finding that
the accident occurred due to negligent driving
of the driver of the offending vehicle. Then,
proceeding to assess the compensation, the
Tribunal below has considered the claim on
different heads and ultimately, granted total
compensation of Rs.65,900/- Though it was
the claim of the claimant that the deceased
was earning Rs.6,000/-per month by working
as a jattu coolly, in absence of any evidence,
the Tribunal below has assessed his earnings
at Rs. 1,500/- per month and having regard to
the percentage of disability of 10 per cent,
awarded compensation of Rs.32,400/- on
account of loss of future earnings in view of
the disability, in addition to compensation on
other aspects.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.