Telangana High Court
Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, vs M/S. Sri Balaji Agencies, on 12 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.2352 OF 2013
JUDMENT:
1. The Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the appellant
seeking grant of compensation. Aggrieved by the said dismissal,
the present appeal is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and
perused the record.
3. The manner in which the accident had taken place and the liability is not in dispute.
4. Briefly, the case of the claimant/appellant who is the injured is that while he was going on a motorcycle along with his friend Syed Mazzamil Shah at 5:30p.m. on 28.03.2006, the offending vehicle which is a seven seater Auto driven in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit them from behind. On account of said impact, both of them fell down and received multiple fractures. Initially, the appellant was taken to Mahaveer hospital on the same day and on the next day, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital.
2
5. Learned Tribunal Judge having considered the evidence put forth by the claimants found that :
1. the description of the vehicle which caused the accident was not stated in the complaint.
2. Driver of the offending vehicle surrendered three days after the accident.
3. Though it was claimed that it was a seven seater Auto, in fact, the said crime vehicle bearing No.AP-09-X-0610 was a goods Auto.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the accident happened and it was clearly mentioned that it was an unknown vehicle. The Driver of the said vehicle surrendered before the Police three days, thereafter. Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed against him and P.W.5 who is the Investigating Officer also entered into the witness box and stated that the Driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-09-X- 0610 caused the accident.
7. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anita Sharma And Others vs. New Inida Assurance Company Limited And Another 1 and Janabai & Ors vs. M/s.ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited 2 and argued that delay in identifying the Driver has no 1 (2021) 1 SCC 171 2 2022 LawSuit(SC) 635 3 consequence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the judgments stated supra has granted compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company would submit that reasons are given in detail as to why compensation was refused. Initially, there was no description of the vehicle which was involved in the accident as per F.I.R. However, three days thereafter, the Driver surrendered and the said vehicle was identified. In fact, though initially it was claimed that it was a seven seater Auto meant for passengers, later it turned out to be goods Auto.
9. The fact remains that as on the date of filing the complaint, it was only mentioned by the pillion rider namely Syed Muzzamil Shah that it was an unknown vehicle. The description of the vehicle was also not given. The accident happened at 5:30 p.m. in the broad day light. It is not that both, the complaint and the claimant became unconscious after the vehicle had hit them or they were not in their senses when the accident happened and they could not observe the vehicle.
10. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in Janabai's case, it was mentioned in the FIR that an unknown car Driver had caused the accident. In the present 4 case, as already stated, description of the vehicle was not given. In Anita Sharma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with fault of the Driver of the offending vehicle. The judgments relied on by learned counsel are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even Ex.X.2/injury certificate shows that the claimant was admitted on 28.03.2006 in Apollo hospital, which is factually incorrect. Even according to the claimant he was admitted in Mahaveer Hospital on 28.03.2006 and on the next day i.e., on 29.03.2006, he was admitted in Apollo Hospital. The said fact is stated by the Doctor-Krishna Reddy, who was examined from Apollo Hospital. It appears from the facts of the present case that help of the owner of the Auto/Driver was taken to claim compensation.
11. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned Tribunal to set aside order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 12.08.2024 dv