NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PADMA SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant in OP.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident which occurred on 24.09.2007, while she was proceeding to a temple in her village, Bangarigadda, on foot. At the place of accident, she was hit from back by a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-29/S-8937, driven by its driver, owned by the respondent No.1 and insured with the respondent No.2. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the claim petition was filed before the tribunal below, claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- under various heads.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained absent and he was set ex parte. The respondent No.2 insurer filed a counter opposing the claim petition. The claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and further examined P.W.2 and P.W.3, who are Orthopaedic Surgeons. Exs.A1 to A10 were marked on behalf of the claimant. EXs.X1 and X2 and Ex.C1 were marked by the tribunal below. R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked on its behalf.

(3.) After considering the pleadings and material on record, the tribunal below arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The tribunal below chose to award Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- toward grievous injury; Rs.2,000/- towards simple injury; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. After assessing the loss of income with 60% disability sustained by the claimant at Rs.57,600/- the tribunal below awarded total compensation of Rs.99,600/- together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The tribunal below further directed that respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation and claim against the respondent No.2, Insurance Company, was dismissed holding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold valid licence at the time of accident.