CHINNA GANGAPPA Vs. B SANJEEVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Injured-petitioner in O.P. 334/88 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Kurnool, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, preferred this appeal.

(2.) The appellant, aged about 27 years was eking out his livelihood as a labourer and Hamali earning about Rs.25/- per day. On 25-1-88 at about 5.30 p.m., the tractor AAQ 5260 and trailer 5261 were in the auto garage of one Satyanarayana at Adoni. The tractor was under repairs since sometime separately in the garage. While the appellant was loading some bags into the trailer, the driver reversed the tractor towards the trailer without observing the persons working around and without giving proper precautions to the workers and consequently the appellant, who was loading the trailer, was crushed between the trailer and the tractor. His both legs were crushed. After rendering first-aid in the Government hospital at Adoni, he was shifted to Government hospital, Bellari for expert treatment. He gave a complaint about the accident on 3-2-88. He was treated at much expense. The injuries have resulted in permanent disability. He cannot walk freely without limp and cannot do any hard work much less labour work. He underwent a lot of pain and suffering due to injuries. He preferred the above claim for a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 / - from the owner and insurer of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident. The claim was resisted. The Tribunal found that the appellant sustained fractures resulting in permanent disability in the accident involving tractor-trailer AAQ 5260 and AAQ 5261 on 25-1-88 at about 5.30 p.m., but found that the appellant failed to prove that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and consequently awarded compensation only on the principle of 'no fault liability' dismissing the rest of the claim.

(3.) Sri K. Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is abundant evidence to establish that the accident was caused only due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and not due to any negligence on the part of the appellant and that the tribunal erred in holding otherwise. He further submitted that the compensation claimed by the appellant towards loss of future income, loss of income during treatment for injuries, pain and suffering, medicines, treatment, transport and incidental expenses is quite reasonable and the appellant is entitled to the said amount.