TADIPAMULA KRISHNA GOUD Vs. SHAIK AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VII Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.214 of 2004, dtd. 24/7/2009, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

(3.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/injured filed a petition under Sec. 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 1/11/2003. It is stated by the petitioner that on 1/11/2003, when the petitioner, along with others, was travelling towards Nizamabad in an Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-25-U-2083, at about 9.00 a.m., when the said Auto-rickshaw reached near Kailash Timber Depot, Arsapalli, the driver of the said Auto drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and gave dash to a Cyclist from behind and later, the said Auto turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates of the Auto-rickshaw sustained multiple grievous injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of left forearm radius lower end, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of 2nd, 3rd metacarpals left, abrasion over left forearm, abrasion over the left shoulder, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts of the body and sustained permanent disability. Immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and later admitted in private nursing home and underwent several operations and incurred more than Rs.1,00,000.00 towards medical expenditure. It is stated by the petitioner that due to the fracture injuries sustained by him, the petitioner is unable to walk and attend to his regular work and getting pain, giddiness and became dependant on others for performing his personal works. Hence filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000.00 against the respondents.