YELAMANCHILI NAGESWARA RAO Vs. G RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the award dated 22-03-2002 in M.V.O.P.No.810 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

(2.) THE appellant-claimant was driving lorry No.AP-16-T-0637 on 11-02-1999 at about 5.00 a.m., when near Tagarapuvalasa by-pass road, lorry No.AP-31 T 3335, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed the lorry of the appellant. THE injured appellant was treated at Government Hospital, Bhimili, and then at University General Hospital, Vijayawada. Crime No.337 of 1999 was registered against the driver of lorry AP 31 T 3335 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. THE 3rd and 4th respondents are the owner and insurer of the lorry driven by the claimant. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs, 1,00,000/-.

(3.) IT rendered the impugned award stating that the evidence of PW.1, the injured, corroborated by First Information Report-Ex.A.1, probablised that the injuries were received by the claimant due to the opposite vehicle dashing against his lorry. The Tribunal found that the 2nd respondent-insurer did not improbablise the claims of PW.1 in any manner either by cross-examination or by contrary evidence. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that Ex.A.8-Bunch of medical bills covered an expenditure of Rs. 5,420/- and taking into account the evidence of PW.3, the doctor, about the disability suffered by PW.1 being 25% and accepting the monthly salary of PW.l at Rs. 2,000/- as claimed, the Tribunal multiplied the annual income of Rs. 24,000/-by the multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant as per Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif(l) (1987 ALT 137) and considered 1/4th of the amount to be the justifiable quantum of compensation for the disability being 25%. Considering the same to be appropriate and reasonable, Rs. 62,700/- was, therefore, awarded with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate costs against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, while the rest of the claim was dismissed without costs.