A BAL REDDY Vs. M S PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed being aggrieved by an Award and Decree dated 20-9-1999 in O.P.No.647 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District at Saroornagar, Hyderabad.

(2.) The appellant is the claimant. According to him, he was working as a Warden in a private school and getting Rs.1,000/- per month. While so, on 11-4-1995 at about 10.00 a.m., when he was riding the Scooter bearing No.AP9E 4639 towards Hayathnagar, a lorry bearing No.AHH 900 came to the main road from a by-lane, in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against his scooter; as a result, he fell down from the scooter and received bleeding injuries on his head and left leg. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and from there to Apollo Hospital on 13-4-1995. He was in intensive care unit for some time and was discharged from Apollo hospital on 4-5-1995. He underwent Surgery for head injury in Apollo hospital, but he has not fully recovered. He suffered memory loss due to head injury. His left leg got fractured and steel rod was fixed. He cannot lead a normal life. Hayathnagar police registered a case in Crime No. 59/95 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry. Therefore, he laid a claim seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Though the accident was not denied, the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry was denied. However, after an elaborate consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent and was responsible for the accident, but granted only an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that in the teeth of medical evidence under Exs.A-7 and A-8 vis-a-vis the deposition of P.W.2, the compensation awarded is neither just nor proper and it is a meagre one. Ex.A-8 read with the oral evidence of P.W.2 would show that the appellant-claimant suffered head injury and also suffered memory loss and he is required to use medicines throughout his life.