K NARAHARI Vs. U SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge). Nalgonda in O.P. No. 802 of 1992 dated 24.12,1994.

(2.) The claimant who is a practising advocate met with an accident while he was proceeding along with his friend in a Maruti car bearing No. AP-28-A-6708 from Hyderabad to Khammam on 15.5.92 at 2.00 p.m. near Manikyalammagudem. According to the claimant, the lorry bearing No. APH 7272 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the car resulting in injuries to the claimant herein and the petitioner in O.P. No. 803 of 1992. The police, Narketpalli, registered a case in Cr. No. 65 of 1992 under section 337, Indian Penal Code against the driver of the lorry. The lorry was insured with the respondent No. 2 insurance company. The petitioner sustained multiple injuries and fractures all over the body. The petitioner was treated as in-patient in Osmania General Hospital. Afterwards, he was admitted in Niveditha Nursing Home and he was there for about five months as he had sustained fracture- cum-dislocation of right hip joint, fracture of right knee, grievous head injury and injuries on ribs, shoulder and other parts of the body. After operation, steel rods were inserted in his right leg. Due to multiple injuries, the petitioner was completely bedridden and became permanently disabled. The petitioner incurred huge amount for getting the treatment, for purchase of medicines and attendant charges. As he is unmarried, chances of getting married are also affected. The petitioner cannot stand continuously for 15 to 30 minutes, due to which he cannot concentrate on his profession, which adversely affects his future earnings. Under those circumstances, he claimed a compensation of Rs. 9,00,000.

(3.) The respondent No. 1 owner of the lorry filed a counter denying the allegations with regard to the disablement, earning capacity and expenditure incurred by the petitioner. He also denied rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry and the accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant of the Maruti car which the petitioner was driving and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e., owner of the Maruti car and insurance company with which the car was insured.