Telangana High Court
The Telangana State Road ... vs G. Padma Rao on 27 July, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2754 of 2018
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 05.06.2018, in
O.P.No.252 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-XX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Secunderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the OP.
3. The appeal is filed by the RTC. The O.P. is filed by the
claimant before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on
06.12.2012 due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of
the RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-7082 and the Tribunal awarded
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2754 of 2018
5. The appeal is filed by the RTC, disputing the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal and the appreciation would
be with respect to the said aspect.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the trial Court erred in considering Ex.A-2 i.e. the disability
certificate without there being any Doctor examined. It is the
further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there
is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, as the
accident occurred while the claimant getting down the bus, and
therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant
contended that Ex.A-2 is the disability certificate showing that the
claimant sustained disability of 84% and the Tribunal has properly
appreciated and awarded compensation, and therefore, prayed to
dismiss the appeal. It is further contended by the learned counsel
for the claimant/respondent that on the ground of non-examination
of the Doctor, the rights of the parties cannot be ousted.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2754 of 2018
8. 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 is to be given for the claimant to examine the
Doctor, to prove the disability of the claimant.
9. It is pertinent to mention that mere marking of the document
is not sufficient but the author of Ex.A-2 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 compensation, though the
document is before it.
10. 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 Exs.A-2 to A-4
and to appreciate the disability sustained by the claimant and pass
appropriate orders.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2754 of 2018
11. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of setting aside the
orders of the Tribunal in MVOP.No.252 of 2013, dated
05.06.2018. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a
direction to examine the Doctor with respect to Exs.A-2 to 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
