1 RRN,J
MACMA No.676 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.676 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 18.12.2012, passed in M.A.T.O.P. No.608 of 2011, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, (FTC-I), Khammam (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.2,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 09.10.2010, the petitioner and one Ravi were travelling on Hero Honda Passion bearing No.AP-22-AA-9324 towards Kodada to collect some amount and when they reached the outskirts of 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.676 of 2014 Nelakondapally near the old bus stand, the driver of the bus bearing No.AP11-Z-1383, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner and said Ravi sustained grievous injuries and fractures. 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 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. The respondent examined RW.1 but no exhibits were marked.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the M.A.T.O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the respondent/RTC.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
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 3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.676 of 2014 appreciate that the negligence was on the rider of the motorcycle, and failed to consider the evidence of RW.1. 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 Tribunal cautiously weighed the evidence on both sides and awarded compensation to the petitioner/claimant under various heads, to a tune of Rs.1,00,000/- 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 18.12.2012, passed in 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.676 of 2014 M.A.T.O.P. No.608 of 2011 by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 10th day of March, 2023 PNS