1 RRN, J
MACMA No.2611 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2611 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Order and decree
dt.10.05.2016 in O.P No.2637 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (for short "the Tribunal").
2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Chandraiah, learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Smt. I. Maamu Vani, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, on 15.06.2011 at about 3.00 p.m. while he was proceeding on a motorbike of his employee from his office i.e. NDCC Bank at Banswada to have lunch in a hotel, a lorry bearing No.AP-16TV-3860 proceeding in the same direction, hit the petitioner's bike, due to which, the motorcycle was tamped, as a result, the petitioner sustained a fracture of the left leg, crush injury to the right leg 2 RRN, J MACMA No.2611 of 2016 and injuries all over the body. Police Banswada registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the lorry. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Banswada and from there he was shifted to Prime Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, where he was admitted as an inpatient for 10 days, an operation was done, rods were inserted and advised for treatment for three months with bed rest. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.80,000/- towards treatment. As such, he filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.
5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter denying the petition allegations. Respondent No.2 mainly contended that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle and hit the lorry bearing No.AP-16TV-3860. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A22. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.
7. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition by observing that the rider of the motorcycle 3 RRN, J MACMA No.2611 of 2016 was not examined on behalf of the petitioner to prove the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and that the petitioner has also not examined any other eyewitness to the accident to establish rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Except the self- serving testimony of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the petition.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition without going into the merits of the case. The Tribunal also failed to keep in mind that the M.V. Act is a beneficial Legislation for the victims in accident cases and the Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view by granting compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and no interference by this Court is required and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
4 RRN, J
MACMA No.2611 of 2016
10. The petitioner to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry has mainly relied upon Ex.A1/FIR and Ex.A3/charge-sheet wherein it is clearly mentioned that the said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-3860 and dashed the ahead going TVS sport bike bearing No.AP-25AF-3070. As such, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claiming petition.
11. The petitioner got filed Ex.A9 to A12 which reveal that he was on medical leave for about 270 days for taking treatment and Ex.A14 is a bunch of medical bills. Hence, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) under all heads to the petitioner towards compensation.
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the Order and decree dt.10.05.2016 in O.P No.2637 of 2011 passed by the Tribunal, and the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The rest of the claim of the petitioner is dismissed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and 5 RRN, J MACMA No.2611 of 2016 severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the petitioner. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount with costs and interest within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 16th day of March, 2023 BDR