HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.5388 of 2008 Date: October 19, 2010 Between: The United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. … Appellant And 1. K. Bikshapathy and another … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.5388 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.1511 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 02.8.1999. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the first respondent herein filed claim petition against the appellant and the second respondent herein for compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh with interest and costs alleging that on 05.11.1995 at about 3-30 p.m. he was travelling in auto trolley No.AP 11 T 7708 as the owner of the goods being carried in the trolley and that suddenly a lorry bearing No.ATT 2216 stopped in front of the trolley and the trolley hit the lorry and came underneath the same. The first respondent herein claimed that due to the accident, he sustained fracture of clavicle bone, ribs and multiple injuries all over the body. He claimed that he was treated in Osmania General Hospital and in a private hospital even after discharge. He referred to crime No.168 of 1995 registered by the police, claiming compensation due to consequences of the injuries making him permanently disabled and depriving his family of the source of earning for their sustenance. 3. The owner of the lorry/second respondent herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal, while the appellant contested the claim contending that the claimant has to strictly prove all his allegations which are not admitted and it further contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the auto trolley and not the lorry driver. The compensation claimed was stated to be excessive and the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation. 5. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 and A-2 and no evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurer. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award referring to positive evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.A-1 F.I.R as probablising that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry. While the Tribunal noted that Ex.A-2 discharge card issued by the Osmania General Hospital did not disclose any injuries, it considered that it is appropriate to award Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earnings for about two months, Rs.1,000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.12,500/- for the injuries and temporary disability caused by them. The total compensation of Rs.20,500/- was directed to carry interest at 12% per annum and proportionate costs. 7. The insurer challenges the said award in this appeal contending that the auto driver himself was rash and negligent resulting in the accident as seen from Ex.A-1 F.I.R. itself and the contents of Ex.A-1 could not have been ignored by the Tribunal in the absence of any rebuttal evidence on record. The lorry which was stationed at the time of accident could not have been considered to be guilty of a rash and negligent act and in the absence of any other evidence except the self serving evidence of the claimant, the claim should have been negatived. 8. Heard Smt. A. Malathi, learned standing counsel for the insurer- appellant and none appeared for the respondents even though personally served with the notices. 9. The point for consideration is whether the Tribunal is not justified in directing the appellant and the second respondent to pay the quantum of compensation fixed by it to the first respondent herein? 10. The Tribunal specifically referred to the positive evidence of P.W.1 and accepted his narration about the manner in which the accident had occurred. Though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to emphasize that the injured was travelling in a goods vehicle and was not shown to be the owner of goods, any such factors will be of no relevance as the responsibility for the accident was fixed on the lorry driver by the Tribunal and not the auto driver due to which the legality of or capacity in which the injured was travelling in the auto will be of no relevance in fixing the compensation. The evidence of P.W.1 may be tainted with interestedness, but every interested evidence cannot be considered to be false evidence in the absence of any positive circumstances for coming to such a conclusion and even if Ex.A-1 F.I.R or even the subsequent charge sheet filed by the police before the magistrate’s court throw the blame on the auto driver, the same cannot be a ground to reject the evidence of P.W.1 which stood uncontroverted before the Tribunal. The acceptance of the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident based on the evidence of P.W.1 on oath before it cannot be considered to be perverse or unreasonable and cannot be deviated from. If so the grant of compensation by the Tribunal against the owner and insurer of the lorry cannot be faulted. Even the quantum of compensation awarded cannot be considered high, as the Tribunal noted that the injured suffered severe injuries and was disabled for about two months. The compensation awarded does not even match the amount payable towards ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act and at this distance of time, neither the quantum nor the interest and costs awarded by the Tribunal need be interfered with on any reasonable ground. 11. Under the circumstances, the appeal has to fail and accordingly the appeal is dismissed without costs. _________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: October 19, 2010. BSB