THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.2863 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 17.08.2007 passed in O.P.No.2348 of 2004 by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2004, while the minor appellant was standing along with his cycle at Mission Compound, Jagtial, at about 7.45 p.m., in order to cross the road, the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP-15-V-598 and 599 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hut the petitioner due to which he fell down and received fracture injuries to both bones of right hand and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Government Hospital, Jagtial and from there to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The Police, Jagtial registered a case in Cr.No.204/2004 against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer under Section 338 of IPC. The appellant filed aforesaid OP against respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the Tractor and Trailer, claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was set exparte and respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments of 2 the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the OP. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal, seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him.
5. Heard.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent/appellant strongly contended that the Court below did not explain proper reasons while dismissing the above petition and also erred in not taking into consideration F.I.R and Charge sheet.
7. A perusal of the impugned award it would shows that absolutely there is no direct testimony to prove the manner in which the accident took place and how the petitioner is said to have received the alleged injuries out of rash and negligent acts of driver of tractor and trailer. This Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of direct testimony to prove the accident and the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor and trailer, no sanctity can be attached to the contents of Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. It is needless to mention here that if a claim is made under Section 166 of M.V.Act, in order to get compensation, the petitioner is required to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in accident and its consequential injuries. But, in the present case on hand, the 3 petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court feels that the learned tribunal had passed a well reasoned order and warrants no interference of this Court.
8. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the award and decree dated 17.08.2007 passed in O.P.No.2348 of 2004 on the file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J 07.11.2023 VRKS