Mohd. Ameer, Nizamabad Dist. vs K. Mohan Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3388 Tel

                 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.889 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved

by the order and decree, dated 03.08.2010 passed in O.P.No.263

of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX

Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kamareddy (for short,

the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him

in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 21.03.2005 the

claimant boarded auto bearing No.AP 25 U 2836 in order to go to

Lingampet village and when the said auto reached near Karpole,

the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at

high speed and lost control over the auto, due to which the auto

was turned turtle and the claimant and other inmates of the

auto sustained injuries. Since the accident occurred due to the

GSD, J Macma_889_2012

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, the

claimant filed the aforesaid O.P. against the respondents 1 and

2, who are the owner and insurer of the said auto, respectively.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained ex parte

and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the averments of

the claim petition and that the accident occurred only due to

the overload of the auto. It is also stated that the

compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the

claim-petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are

framed before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No.AP 25 U 2836 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what just amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the

GSD, J Macma_889_2012

respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were

marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition

on the ground that the claimant failed to establish that the

injuries suffered by him as shown in Ex.A3 are pertaining to the

accident that took place due to the negligence of the Auto

bearing No.AP 25 Y 2836. Aggrieved by the said order, the

claimant filed the present appeal.

8. Even though the matter pertains to the year 2012, none

represents on behalf of the 2nd respondent -Insurance Company.

In order to give a quietus to the litigation, this Court appoints

Ms.P.Satya Manjula, who is also one of panel advocates for the

2nd respondent-insurance company, to argue on behalf of the 2nd

respondent-insurance company. Hence, heard Y.S.Yellanand

Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant-claimant and

Ms.P.Satya Manjula, for the 2nd respondent-insurance company

and perused the material available on record.

GSD, J Macma_889_2012

9. A perusal of the impugned order would show that while

dismissing the claim-petition the Tribunal had extensively dealt

with the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

The findings of the Tribunal in paragraph No.9 of the impugned

order are necessary to be reproduced herein for better

appreciation of the matter.

"9. The contention of the petitioner is that in the accident that took place on 02.03.2005 due to the negligence of the Auto bearing No.AP 25 U 2836, the petitioner suffered both grievous and simple injuries and as such he is entitled for compensation. The same is resisted by the respondents. The evidence on record show that the petitioner apart from adducing his oral evidence has also adduced oral evidence of P.W.2 i.e., the medical officer, who treated the petitioner, after the accident. As per the evidence of P.W.2, he examined the petitioner on 08.04.2005 i.e., 18 days after the accident and found there was a contusion on the left zygomatic bone, an abrasion with contusion on the right parietal region, contusion with abrasion on the left shoulder, fracture of the clavicle on the left side, abrasion over the right knee, abrasion over the left fore arm, abrasion on the left knee and the petitioner was complaining of pain on the left lumbar region and as such he issued certificate to that effect Ex.A3. Whereas

GSD, J Macma_889_2012

the contents of the petition mentions that the petitioner has suffered fracture on the left hand, dislocation of clavicle bone, head injury and multiple grievous injuries all over his body which goes to show that the evidence of the petitioner is different from the evidence of the medical officer and that the injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 do not tally with the injuries mentioned in the petition as the petitioner though mentioned of a fracture on the left hand no such injuries mentioned in the injury certificate or in the evidence of P.W.2 and the petitioner failed to explain as to what happened to the alleged fracture on the left hand suffered by him is not noticed by the medical officer, who examined him. The said evidence of P.W.2 when read with the contents of Ex.A3 i.e., the injury certificate eon one side and the statement of P.W.1 along with the contents of Ex.A1 and A2 i.e., the F.I.R.

and charge sheet on the other side, the same shows that the injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 are not pertaining to the accident that is alleged to have taken place on 21.03.2005 as the medical officer, who examined the injured i.e., P.W.2 stated that the injuries found on the petitioner are only six hours old whereas the petitioner was examined by him about 18 days after the date of the accident. Since the said evidence of the petitioner that he has suffered the injuries as shown under Ex.A3 in the accident that took place on 21.03.2005 as shown under Ex.A1 due to the negligence of the Auto bearing No.AP 25 U 2836 is not established, the Court concludes

GSD, J Macma_889_2012

that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation even Ex.B2 and B3 supports the said contentions of the respondents that the petitioner did not sustain any injuries in the accident that took place on 21.03.2005. Hence, the Court concludes that when the petitioner failed to establish that the injuries suffered by him as shown under Ex.A3 are pertaining to the accident that took place on 21.03.2005 due to the negligence of the Auto bearing No.AP 25 U 2836, the question of petitioner being entitled for compensation does not arise though Ex.A1 and A2 establishes that an accident did take place on 21.03.2005 due to the negligence of the Auto bearing No.AP 25 U 2836. Since, the Court found that the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation, the question of the quantum of compensation or who should pay the compensation does not arise. Hence, decides the issue against the petitioner."

10. From the above, it is clear that while dismissing the

claim-petition, the learned Tribunal gave cogent reasons, based

on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence brought on

record. Absolutely, no ground is made out by the learned

counsel for the claimant to interfere with the well reasoned

order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is

devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.

GSD, J Macma_889_2012

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal,

shall stand closed.

__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 05.07.2022 gkv