Telangana High Court
Mohd. Yakub vs Gare Sammakka And 2 Others on 16 July, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No. 1768 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle, who is aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal to pay compensation to the petitioners vide Award in MVOP No.270 of 2007, dated 02.09.2008.
2. The case of the claimants, who are the wife and children is that while the deceased was going in an auto rickshaw, the respondent, who was driving his motor cycle bearing No.AP 36K 7008 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto rickshaw resulting in the auto rickshaw hitting a big tree. On account of the impact, the deceased received head injuries and died.
3. The appellant/driver took plea in the court below that it was the auto, which was driven in zig-zag manner in high speed and on seeking his motor cycle, took sudden turn and hit a big tree. For the said reason, the driver of the auto in which eight persons were 2 sitting was responsible for the accident and appellant is no way concerned.
4. Appellant has admitted that in fact he was driving the auto and the accident had happened. Except stating that the auto driver is at fault nothing was brought on record before the Tribunal to disbelieve the evidence of the claimants and the complicity of the appellant in causing the accident.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the auto was over loaded and the driver of the auto was at fault. However, the appellant was made the scapegoat.
6. The Court below had considered the evidence of P.W.2,who was injured person sitting in the auto and R.W.2 produced by the appellant was also an eye witness to the accident. However, the trial Court found that on account of the rash and negligent driving of the appellant herein, the accident happened. It is further the case that the police have also investigated into the case and found fault with the appellant herein for causing the accident. In the said circumstances, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the trial Court.
3
7. Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 16.07.2024 kvs