UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MOHD SABER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd respondent-insurer in O.P.No.917 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Nizamabad (the Tribunal, for short), preferred the present appeal assailing the award granting compensation at Rs. 3,41,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit in favour of the sole petitioner before the Tribunal. The petitioner before the Tribunal is the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal is arrayed as the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent filed a petition under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act, for short) claiming compensation at Rs. 10,00,000/-. It is the case of the 1st respondent that on 10-4-1999 he was travelling in lorry bearing registration No. ATT-1875 owned by the 2nd respondent-insured with the appellant as a cleaner. At about 2.00 p.m., when the driver of the lorry drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, the lorry turned turtle near Jeevadan Hospital near Mobin Poultry Farm near Gandimasanipet village. The 1st respondent sustained fracture of both the bones of both the legs. He also sustained fracture of the ribs, upper end of the left tibia and other multiple grievous injuries. The 1st respondent was treated initially at the Government Hospital, Yellareddy. He claimed that he underwent treatment subsequently from a private doctor.

(2.) The 1st respondent, who was 25 years at the time of the accident, claimed that he was working as a cleaner and milk vendor and was earning Rs. 4,000/- per month and Rs. 100/- per day as batta for his employment as a cleaner. He also claimed that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month as a milk-vendor. He allegedly suffered permanent disability, so much so, he is unable to attend to his works. The 1st respondent, consequently, claimed compensation at Rs. 10,00,000/-.

(3.) The 2nd respondent, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant-insurer laid written statement putting the 1st respondent to strict proof denying all the allegations.