PANDYALA VENKATEESWARLU GANDHI Vs. D RAMA MOHANA REDY AND ANOTHER
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Pandyala Venkateeswarlu Gandhi
D Rama Mohana Redy And Another
Click here to view full judgement.
Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J. -
(1.)This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity "the Act") is preferred by the appellant-petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2006 in MVOP No.79 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short "the Tribunal") awarding compensation of Rs.1,87,301/- with proportionate costs and with interest @ 6% p.a., as against the claim of Rs.5,35,000/- laid by him under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act, towards injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 16.11.2001.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2001 at about 05.20 a.m., while the appellant-petitioner was going on 1st respondent's lorry with a load of 40 bags of lemon, from Kanigiri to reach Bangalore, and when the lorry reached near Bandaplli, the driver of the lorry drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the RTC bus, which was coming in opposite direction. Due to which, the petitioner received grievous injuries, and was shifted to GGH Guntur, and on the same day he was shifted from GGH Guntur to Dr Lakshmana Swamy Hosptial, Guntur for better treatment, where his both legs were operated and steel rods were inserted and hence compensation of Rs.5,35,000/- was claimed against the respondents No.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively.
(3.)The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying all the allegations and contended that the petitioner did not implead the owner of the RTC bus and its owner, hence the petition is liable to be dismissed, for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further contended that the liability of 2nd respondent is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. The validity of the driving licence, validity permit and validity of registration certificate are to be proved. It is further contended that 2nd respondent has denied the age, income, nature of injuries suffered and the percentage of the disability are to be proved by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant, hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.