BHASKARA REDDY V Vs. B NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal, Krishna at Vijayawada in M.V.O.P. No.403 of 1989 dated 26-4-1996. C.M.A. No.975 of 1996 is by the claimant, whereas C.M.A. No.1151 of 1996 is by the insurer, who is the 3rd respondent in the O.P. The matters being between the same parties involving common questions of law and fact have been heard together and being disposed of by means of this commor judgment. The reference to the parties will be in accordance with the seriatim in the O.P. and also in C.M.A. No.975 of 1996.

(2.) The claimant, an Advocate aged 26 years at the relevant time, having suffered injuries during the motor vehicle accident, which occurred on 7-5-1989 at about 8.15 a.m. at Padavalarevu bus stop opposite to his house at Vijayawada, and having suffered certain consequences thereof according to him, laid a claim under Station 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short 'the Act') for recovery of the compensation of Rs.1,54,214/- under various heads as against the 1st respondent, the driver of the vehicle AHH 1932 which involved in the accident, the 2nd respondent, the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent, the insurer. It was resisted only by the 3rd respondent, whereas the 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. Here also only the 3rd respondent insurer has resisted the appeal of the claimant, inasmuch as it filed its own appeal as above. The Tribunal having found that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, fixed the age of the claimant at 26 years, his income at Rs.2,000/- per mensem and awarded Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation to the Hospital, Rs.7,604/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000 /- towards pain and suffering, continuing disability and loss of earning powers etc., and as a whole the Tribunal awarded Rs.64,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. The 3rd respondent as the insurer had raised a defence that as the 1st respondent, the driver of the vehicle did not possess valid driving licence, it is not liable to pay the compensation. This was held in the negative by the Tribunal. Thus the claimant having been aggrieved by the quantum of compensation so much awarded and the 3rd respondent for having been put to the liability to pay the compensation under the award suffering the finding on issue No.3 in the negative, have come up with the present appeals.

(3.) The claimant himself being the Advocate argued the matter along with Mr. Govinda Reddy, another learned Advocate and contended that in whatever manner the compensation must be assessed, it is unjustifiably low, particularly when he suffered very serious injuries leading to permanent disability which has affected his Advocate's profession and that the Tribunal in spite of the clear evidence on record has awarded the compensation under the items stated above arbitrarily without due consideration of the admitted and proved facts and also the law operating upon them. Mr. K.L.N. Rao, learned Advocate for the 3rd respondent in his appeal has contended that in spite of the evidence in Exs.B-1 and B-2 showing that the 1st respondent, the driver of the vehicle, himself had pleaded guilty to the accusation that he did not possess valid driving licence and suffered the conviction for such an offence, the Tribunal was not justified in mulcting the liability on the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation under the award. The learned Advocates on both the sides have tried to support themselves with the precedents.