Telangana High Court
Syed Viqaruddin vs Abdul Qadar And 2 Ors on 16 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.50 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Ms. P.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for respondent No.3-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, (M.A.C.T)-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.202 of 2015, dated 08.09.2016 and thereby, sought for enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellant herein is the claim petitioner, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owners of crime vehicle and the 3rd respondent herein is the insurance company. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that at the time of accident the appellant-claimant was a student and was LNA,J MACMA No.50 of 2017 2 aged about 19 years and was hale and healthy. On 30.09.2013 at about 2.00 a.m., the appellant-claimant along with his relatives was travelling in TATA Magic Auto bearing registration No.AP- 01-TV-3862 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle), from Godavari Khani to Kagaznagar and when the said Auto reached near Takkallapalli Bus stop, the driver of the said auto drove the auto in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed one Lorry bearing No.MH-34-AR-8129 from behind. As a result, claimant-appellant sustained injuries on his left shoulder and other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital, and thereafter, he took treatment in Madhura hospital, Kahaznagar; that he spent Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Due to the said accident, the appellant-claimant, apart from suffering pain and agony, lost his one academic year. Hence, he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1, who is the owner of crime vehicle as per R.C., and respondent no.2, who is LNA,J MACMA No.50 of 2017 3 the owner of crime vehicle as per insurance policy, remained ex- parte.
6. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age and occupation of the petitioner and further contended that unless and until it is proved that the driver of the said auto was holding the valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation; that the claim is exorbitant and as such, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioner on 30.09.2013 at about 2.00 a.m., near Takkalapalli Bus stand, as alleged by the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of TATA Magic Auto bearing No.AP01-TV-3862 of first respondent or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?
ii) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and disability as alleged?
iii) Whether there was any insurance coverage for the driver of TATA magic auto bearing No.AP01-TV-3862 and if so, does the policy cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by the respondent?
LNA,J MACMA No.50 of 2017 4
iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurer of Lorry bearing No.MH-34-AR-8129?
v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation if so what extent and against whom?
vi) To what relief?
8. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent No.3-insurance company, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and documents placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount. The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 3 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant-claimant submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/- as against the claim of LNA,J MACMA No.50 of 2017 5 Rs.50,000/-; that though the Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, erred in awarding meager compensation; that Tribunal failed to award the amounts under the heads of medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of academic year, transport charges etc; that though the petitioner suffered fracture injury, the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards fracture injury and finally prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent- insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, had rightly awarded the compensation and the appellant failed to make out any case to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perusal of record and material placed on record would show that the claimant/appellant sustained simple injury i.e., an abrasion, which is evident from Ex.A2-injury certificate; that except filing Ex.A2-injury certificate, petitioner did not examine the Doctor, who treated him, to show that he sustained fracture LNA,J MACMA No.50 of 2017 6 injury; that no medical bills were filed before the Tribunal to show that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses.
13. Except filing Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR and Ex.A2-attested copy of injury certificate, no document is placed before the Tribunal in proof of allegation including loss of academic career, incurring expenditure towards treatment for injuries sustained by the appellant. Further, except evidence of P.W.1, no other witness was examined. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court the Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence and material placed on record and awarded the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
14. In the light of the above, the Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date: 16.04.2024 Fm/kkm