1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2125 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/respondent R.T.C under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 23.10.2013 passed in O.P. No.914 of 2010 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 06.07.2010, while he was proceeding to market at Kukatpally on his scooter bearing No.AP28-AH-6475, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10-Z-1007, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed came from Kukatpally side and 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 of 2014 dashed the petitioner. As a result, he sustained injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Remedy Hospital, Kukatpally, and later he was treated in Apollo Hospital, where he had undergone surgeries and incurred an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- towards treatment. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Respondent filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition.
5. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and C1. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. by awarding compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent/RTC.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 of 2014
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/RTC inter alia contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding excess and exorbitant compensation and the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the negligence was on the rider of the scooter and also grossly erred in awarding compensation under the heads of pain and suffering and future medical surgery expenses. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/claimant contended that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order, which calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. This Court having considered the submissions of both parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in passing the impugned order as the evidence adduced by the petitioner that it was the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus due to which the accident occurred, was not rebutted in any manner as the respondent/RTC failed to adduce either oral or documentary 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2125 of 2014 evidence. As such, the Tribunal cautiously weighed the evidence on both sides and awarded compensation to the petitioner/claimant under various heads to a tune of Rs.8,00,000/- which is reasonable. In these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming the order and decree dated 23.10.2013, passed in O.P. No.914 of 2010 by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 3rd day of April, 2023 PNS/BDR