Telangana High Court
Manda Vidya Sagar, Nalgonda Dist vs Surapaneni Sujatha, Krishna Dist And ... on 28 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.421 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri N.Krishna Murthy learned counsel for appellant/ claimant and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent no.2-Insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, at Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1073 of 2011, dated 01.11.2016, wherein and thereby, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. Appellant herein is the petitioner/claimant, respondent no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 2
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4.1. On 06.03.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., while the claimant along with his friend went to Parade village on motor cycle bearing No.AP-24-L-928 being driven by the claimant on his personal work and while they were returning to Nalgonda and when they reached near check post of Kattangur village on NH-9, a trolley lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-TV-1099 came from Vijayawada side and was proceeding towards Hyderabad, in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of the claimant, due to which, they fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, claimant was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Narketpally and there from he was shifted to Aware Global Hospital, Hyderabad, where he admitted as inpatient. On the complaint given by the driver of the lorry, the Police, Kattangur Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.27/2011 under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the claimant.
LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 3 4.2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of APMV Rules, 1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
4.3. It was contended that the claimant was working as Attender at S.I.R.T.College of Pharmacy Cherlapally and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, that due to accident, he sustained grievous injuries and is not in a position to sit and walk properly and he lost past and future income and is still undergoing treatment.
5. Respondent no.1 remained ex parte. The respondent no.2- insurance company filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant and further contended that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle were not added as parties to the claim petition and in their absence, the claim LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 4 petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of trolley lorry bearing no.AP-16-TV-1099 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ?
iii) To what relief ?
8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On behalf of insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and material placed on record, has come to conclusion that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 5 driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for claimant, while reiterating the averments made in the claim petition, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the accident should not have been occurred without negligence of the drivers of both vehicles and negligence ought not to have been attributed only on the claimant in the case of contributory negligence; that the Tribunal erred in relying on Ex.B1-rough sketch and came to a conclusion that the driver of motorcycle was in rash and negligent manner. He further contended that registration of criminal case against the rider of motorcycle would not any way establishes the negligence on the part of the claimant and that as MV Act is a welfare legislation, the Tribunal ought to have considered that the accident occurred due to involvement of both vehicles and finally, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned award and award just compensation.
LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 6
11. Learned counsel for claimant placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention.
i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Chamundeswari and others [Civil Appeal No.6151 of 2021 dated 01.10.2021] and
ii) Syed Ibrahim vs. Union of India, rep.by Secretary to Central Government, Ministry of Defence 1
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2/ insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, on due consideration of evidence, material placed on record, had rightly dismissed the O.P. He further submitted that the appeal is devoid of any merit and the appellant failed to make out any case warranting this Court to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal. Consideration :
13. The main contention raised by the appellant/claimant is that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the 1 2003 LawSuit (AP) 51 LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 7 motorcycle i.e., claimant. It is pertinent to note that on the complaint given by the driver of the lorry, the Police registered the case as in Ex.P1-FIR and filed Ex.P2-charge sheet, which clearly show that claimant was shown as accused for his rash and negligent driving leading to non-fatal road accident. It further reveals that during investigation, the investigating officer came to conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the rear tyre of lorry, which is also evident from Ex.B1-CC of scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch.
14. Further, on perusal of Ex.B1, it is evident that the lorry was going on the extreme left side of the road, whereas the motor cycle came from connecting approach road and hit the rear tyre of the lorry, which show that rider of the motorcycle/claimant was rash and negligent and did not follow the traffic rules while entering to the National Highway from the approach road. Furthermore, it appears that the father of the claimant filed LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 8 application on 14.03.2011 before the Superintendent of Police office, Nalgonda, for reinvestigation of the case and the police even after receipt of said application filed charge sheet on 24.05.2011 against the claimant after thorough enquiry. However, the status of the criminal case registered against the claimant is not brought to the notice of this Court.
15. In Chamundeswari's case (supra), on the date of incident, the deceased was driving Maruti Car from Perumanallur to Erode; that at that time one Eicher Van was proceeding in front of the car driven by the deceased; that all of a sudden, the driver of Eicher Van has turned towards right side without giving any signal or indicator and the said lapse resulted in the accident.
16. In Syed Ibrahim's (supra), when the appellant was proceeding as a pillion on the scooter of his brother, a military jeep bearing No.84 B 3636--Y came in their opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter, resulting in injuries to him.
LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 9
17. Whereas in the instant case, as per Ex.B1-scene of offence panchanama, the lorry was proceeding from Vijayawada towards Hyderabad, on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, the motorcycle driven by the claimant came from connecting approach road and hit the rear tyre of the lorry without following the traffic rules while entering to the National Highway, and in the said accident, the claimant received injuries.
18. Thus, the facts of the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for claimant and the facts in the present case are different and have no application to the case on hand and thus, do not come to the aid of the claimant.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal, on due analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly dismissed the O.P. filed by the claimant and further, claimant failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court with the impugned award. Therefore, LNA,J MACMA No.421 of 2017 10 this Court is not inclined to interfere with a reasoned award passed by the Tribunal.
20. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 28.06.2024 kkm