R. PUSHPA Vs. TALARI PARVATHIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured claimant, who was favoured with an award of Rs.1,78,000.00, is the appellant.

(2.) According to the claimant, as a result of the road accident that occurred on 16/5/2014 while she was walking from East to West towards Red Hills bus stop at Grand Northern Trunk Road, a lorry bearing Registration No.AP-21-TY-3153, which was coming on the opposite direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit against her resulting in grievous injuries. As a result of the injuries suffered by her, she is unable to continue her work as a part time Sweeper and also as a vendor in dosa, idli batter. The claimant had also undergone treatment and several surgeries have been performed. Thus, the claimant sought for a compensation of Rs.50,00,000.00. The Insurance Company resisted the claim petition contending that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the claimant while crossing the road. Besides, the age, income and employment particulars of the injured were also denied by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record including the fact that First Information Report was filed against the driver of the lorry, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. On quantum, the Tribunal rejected the documents, namely, Exs.P4, P10, P11 and P13, which are medical bills stating that they are highly excessive. The Tribunal also concluded that the claimant had not suffered any loss of earning power because of the injuries caused. The Tribunal thus assessed the disability at 14.5%. On the said findings, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,78,000.00 as compensation. Aggrieved, the claimant is before us by way of this appeal.

(3.) We have heard Ms.Ramya V.Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Vinoth, learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company. The first respondent, namely, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal and hence, notice to him in this appeal is dispensed with.