1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2931 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 26.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No.652 of 2007, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 24.02.2007 at about 8.30 a.m., respondent No.1/claimant was proceeding on his Suzuki Motorcycle bearing No.API-B-4534 and when he reached near Agricultural Market Yard Office, Pitlam, a tractor bearing No.AP25-J-9591 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 of 2014 respondent No.1/claimant. Due to which, he sustained grievous fracture injuries and he incurred about Rs.80,000/- towards treatment. Hence, the claim petition.
4. The appellant filed a counter denying the allegations made in the petition.
5. To prove his case, the respondent No.1/claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant/owner.
6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.1,41,370/- to respondent No.1/claimant. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/owner.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner inter alia contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation to the respondent No.1/claimant as the Tribunal considered 3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 of 2014 two injuries instead of one and further did not consider that there was contributory negligence on the part of the respondent No.1/claimant. He further contended that despite there being no medical evidence and no doctor was examined in order to prove the injuries sustained by respondent No.1/claimant, the Tribunal went on to grant compensation to respondent No.1/claimant and the same is erroneous. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
9. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1/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 respondent No.1/claimant under various heads, to a tune of Rs.1,41,370/- which is reasonable. It is evident from the record that the appellant/owner did not 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 of 2014 choose to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, as such, he failed to rebut the case of the respondent No.1/claimant in all the three issues framed by the Tribunal. 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 26.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No.652 of 2007 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