Duaguntla Subba Rao vs Thotakura Krishnam Raju Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 3908 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.316 of 2016

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is arising out of the order dated 26.12.2013, in

MVOP.No.656 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed in the OP.

3. The appeal is filed by the claimant, who is said to be injured

in the road accident that occurred on 20.04.2005 at 4.15 p.m. near

Vinayaka Petrol Station, Aswaraopeta. The O.P. is filed before the

Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the

claimant and the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,34,500/-.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. The appeal is filed questioning the quantum of compensation

granted by the Tribunal and not of the liability. During the course

of arguments, it is contended by the learned counsel for the

GAC, J MACMA.No.316 of 2016

claimant that Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate showing that the

claimant sustained disability of 60%, but the Tribunal did not

consider the said document and no amount was granted under the

said head.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company contended that the claimant has

not made any effort to examine the Doctor before the Tribunal to

prove the contents of Ex.A-4, and therefore, the Tribunal have

rightly discarded the said document and did not grant any

compensation for disability.

7. The record reveals that PW-1/claimant alone was examined

before the Tribunal and Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked on his behalf.

It is an admitted fact that the Doctor was not examined before the

Tribunal for the reasons best known to the claimant. At this

juncture, the learned counsel for the claimant contended that the

Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation for the persons who

sustained injuries in the road accidents, and hence, an opportunity

GAC, J MACMA.No.316 of 2016

is to be given for the claimant to examine the Doctor, to prove the

disability of the claimant.

8. It is pertinent to mention that mere marking of the document

is not sufficient but the author of Ex.A-4 or any other Doctor who

treated the claimant, is to be examined to establish that the

claimant sustained disability, so as to establish his claim for

compensation towards disability. In the absence of proper oral

evidence, the Tribunal cannot grant any compensation, though the

document is before it.

9. Taking into consideration the contention of the learned

counsel for the claimant, this Court is of the considered opinion

that it is a fit case to remand the matter to the Tribunal only for the

purpose of examining the Doctor with respect to Ex.A-4 alone and

to appreciate the disability sustained by the claimant and pass

appropriate orders.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of setting aside the

orders of the Tribunal in MVOP.No.656 of 2012, dated

26.12.2013. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a

GAC, J MACMA.No.316 of 2016

direction to examine the Doctor with respect to Ex.A-4 as aforesaid

and dispose of the case afresh within a period of three months from

the date of receipt of this order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 27.07.2022

ajr