PENKEY KONDA Vs. SORAPALLI ZEDSON MOSES
LAWS(APH)-2005-4-19
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 07,2005

PENKEY KONDA Appellant
VERSUS
SORAPALLI ZEDSON MOSES Respondents

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.