THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order dated 04.06.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No.410 of 2012, by the Judge, Family Court-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, (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.4,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 25.05.2012, the petitioner was riding his TVS XL No.AP-23P-7787 from Zaheerabad to Huggelli Village and at 2.30 p.m., when he reached near Aruna School, within the limits of Huggeli Village, one Tata Safari Car bearing No.AP-09-CA-3496 belonging to the first respondent came at high speed and hit the motorcycle from behind, due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 of 2014 shifted to the Government Hospital at Zaheerabad and from there he was taken to Remedy Hospital at Kukatpally and received medical treatment as a inpatient. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Respondents filed their respective counter affidavits denying the allegations in the petition.
5. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. The respondents examined RW.1 and no document was marked.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.2,76,890/- to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding the just compensation and also erred in concluding that the accident was due to the contributory negligence of the petitioner and deducted 25% of amount owing to such negligence. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by granting the 25% the deducted compensation amount.
3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 of 2014
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was right in concluding that there was contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival contentions raised by both parties, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the petitioner contributed 25% negligence in causing the accident as a perusal of the record reveals that the offending vehicle i.e. the car of respondent No.1 got damaged on its left side and further the petitioner himself admitted that he was driving his motorcycle in the centre of the road instead of the left side. On appreciating, inter alia, above ground, the Tribunal rightly adjudicated the issue and granted only 75% of the awarded amount i.e. Rs.2,76,890/- with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any fault in the impugned order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
12. Resultantly, MACMA No.2729 of 2014 is dismissed by confirming the order dated 04.06.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No.410 of 2012, by the Tribunal. No order as to costs.
4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2729 of 2014 As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 10th day of March, 2023 PNS/BDR