Telangana High Court
Bojja Yadaiah vs Ch. Mallesh And Anr on 12 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.668 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
The claimant is aggrieved by the order of refusal dated 04.12.2006 in O.P.No.828 of 2003 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge at Nalgonda Tribunal, to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- as claimed by him.
2. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri M. Vijay, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
3. The claimant was involved in a road accident, on 01.08.2003 at about 4pm, while he was travelling in an auto. The driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which, the auto moved in jig jag position and the claimant fell down and the rear wheel of the auto ran over on the right leg, resulting in grievous fracture injuries. A case vide Crime No.75 of 2003 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC was registered by the Police, Nalgoda Rural against the auto driver.
KS, J MACMA_668_2007 2
4. The claimant has filed O.P.No.828 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Before the Trial Court, in order to prove his claim, the claimant got examined himself as PW1 apart from examining the Investigating Officer as PW2 and also got marked Ex.A1 to A5.
5. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the claimant did not prove Ex.A3/Wound Certificate and Ex.A4/Out patient ticket. The accident occurred on 01.08.2003 and the complaint was lodged on 04.08.2003 with a delay of three days. Though he claimed that he was admitted in the hospital on 04.08.2003 and discharged on 18.08.2003, neither any case sheet nor any documents supporting his treatment were produced.
6. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that strict proof of occurrence of accident is not required and delay of three days is of no consequence since the investigating Officer was examined as PW2, who spoke about the accident. Hence, prayed to award just compensation.
KS, J MACMA_668_2007 3
7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company submits that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and has rightly dismissed the claim application.
8. When the accident had taken place, the burden is on the claimant to prove the injuries sustained by him and also his hospitalization. Merely the claimant had got marked the wound certificate and out patient ticket which were issued by the hospital namely Raji Reddy Private Hospital, Nalgonda without examining anyone from the said hospital to prove the contents of said documents. In the absence of proving that the claimant was hospitalized and treated in the said hospital, the Tribunal had correctly inferred that the claimant failed to prove the injuries alleged to have been received by him and also his hospitalization for treatment of the said injuries. Hence, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal in refusing to grant compensation as claimed by the claimant.
KS, J MACMA_668_2007 4
9. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 12.02.2024 gvl