THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A. No.1710 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13.04.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.581 of 2001 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal).
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.1999, at about 6.40 p.m., while the appellant was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-25-T- 4069, when the auto reached near Bodhan by-pass road near Peddireddi Rice Mill, a bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-4170 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner dashed the auto. As a result, the appellant sustained multiple injuries. The appellant filed aforesaid OP against respondent Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-4170 by its driver ?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and against whom?
3) To what relief?2
5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal dismissed the OP. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed the present appeal, seeking compensation.
6. Heard.
7. A perusal of the findings of the Tribunal below, it is observed that the tribunal invariably made it a point to require the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured at first instance for twice. Mere production of a disability certificate or bunch of prescriptions will not be proof of the extent of disability stated therein, unless the doctor who treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with reference to the documents. From the order of the learned tribunal, it is seen that injured at the first instance in his petition claimed to have taken treatment at Maithri Hospital, Nizamabad and secondly he contradicted his own version by stating that immediately, after the accident he took the treatment at Government Hospital, Bhodhan. In view of the contradictions in the evidence of the petitioner, the view adopted by the learned tribunal with regard to non-examination of the doctor who issued material documents such as medical prescriptions is, acquires significance. At this juncture, it is to be noted that there is no explanation from the end of claimant as to why they failed to examine the doctor who treated him for twice.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned order and warrants no interference. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
3
9. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:15.09.2023 VRKS 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A. No.1710 OF 2008 Date:15.09.2023 VRKS