C. JAHENDER REDDY @ JAHIND REDDY Vs. K. SANGAMESHWAR RAO AND UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE injured -claimant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P. No. 931 of 2002 dated 01.11.2004, awarding compensation of Rs. 33,500/ - (Rupees thirty three thousand five hundred only) as against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/ - (Rupees two lakhs only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Heard Sri V. Atchut Ram, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.K. Sridhar, the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent -United India Insurance Company Limited and memo filed by the appellant vide USR No. 351 of 2012 stating that the 1st respondent/driver -cum -owner is not necessary party since he remained ex -parte in the Tribunal. In this regard, in M. Chakra Rao v. Y. Baburao : 2001 (1) ALT 495 DB, the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph No. 12 held that statutory liability of the insurance company, in the absence of the owner of the crime vehicle in the appeal filed by the claimants, can be decided and maintainable as held in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Harijana Babakka : 1992 (2) ALT 155 for fixing statutory liability, the presence of the owner at the appellate stage is not necessary. The same was also quoted with approval in G. Aravind Kumar v. Md. Sadat Ali : (2011) (4) ALD 804. Thus, the contention that the appeal is not maintainable without impleading owner of the vehicle as co -respondent against the insurer of the vehicle is not sustainable thereby it can be taken up for hearing. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

(2.) THE contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal erred in arriving a wrong conclusion on the quantum of compensation and awarded a very meager amount instead of awarding as claimed and prayed for from nature of the injuries proved sustained, pain and sufferance therefrom, treatment undergone and amount incurred for the same and hence to allow the appeal by enhancing and awarding full compensation as prayed for.

(3.) THE facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 20.04.2002 at about 10.30 p.m. due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver -cum -owner/1st respondent of the crime vehicle (Tipper bearing No. AP 31 T 6615) insured with the 2nd respondent covered by Ex. B.1 policy, same dashed against the motor cycle bearing No. AP 22 A 4939 being ridden by the Claimant, by name C. Jahender Reddy @ Jahind Reddy, aged about 25 years, Challampally Village, Thilakondapally Mandal, Mahaboobnagar district, private job in Vijaya Milk Co -operative Society, Champally village, earning of Rs. 5500/ - p.m. and as a result, the claimant sustained grievous and simple injuries i.e. 1) lacerated injury on right hand, 2) fracture of right femur and 3) lacerated injury over left chin skin deep and a blunt injury on abdomen (as per Ex. A.3 medical certificate and Ex. A.4 discharge summery) which occurrence is covered by Ex. A.1 First Information Report in Cr. No. 128 of 2002 U/sec. 338 IPC and Ex. A.2 charge sheet. The Tribunal from the evidence of P.W.1 -claimant with reference to Ex. A.3 medical certificate and Ex. A.4 discharge summery and other documentary evidence on record came to conclusion of P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries in the accident awarded Rs. 33,500/ - viz., Rs. 15,000/ - for medical expenses, Rs. 15,000/ - for pain and sufferance, Rs. 3,000/ - for loss of earnings and Rs. 500/ - for transport charges against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Said quantum is impugned as low by claimant and as high by the contesting respondent.