S. Raji Reddy, vs K. Ram Mohan Major
2023 Latest Caselaw 606 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 606 Tel
Judgement Date : 7 February, 2023

Telangana High Court

S. Raji Reddy, vs K. Ram Mohan Major on 7 February, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                  1                               RRN,J
                                                          MACMA No.1656 of 2014

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A.No. 1656 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner

against the order and decree dated 15.02.2005 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.2039 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District

Judge(FTC), Nizamabad.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 28.09.2006 at about 5.00 P.M., the petitioner along

with another was proceeding on a bicycle and when they reached

near Government Polytechnic, at the same time one Auto bearing

No.AP-25T-8407 came from their behind at high speed in a rash

and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against their

bicycle. The petitioner sustained several injuries all over the

body and a fracture to his right hand. Immediately, he was

shifted to Government Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad, for

treatment. A case in Crime No.117 of 2000 under Section 337

IPC was registered by the Police for the said

accident. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

                                  2                          RRN,J
                                                    MACMA No.1656 of 2014

3. Respondent No.1 owner of the crime Auto filed a written

statement denying the petition averments and stated that the

crime Auto was duly insured with respondent No.2 and the

policy was in force as on the date of the accident and if the

Tribunal concludes that the petitioner is entitled to

compensation, the same may be granted against the respondent

No.2 only.

4. Respondent No.2 filed a counter apart from denying the

petition allegations, contended that at the time of accident, the

driver of the crime Auto was not holding a subsisting driving

licence to drive such vehicle and the vehicle was not road worthy

with a valid permit and fitness to play.

3. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following

points:

1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle Auto bearing No.AP-25T-8407 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so, to what amount and against which of the respondent?

3. To what relief?

                                  3                         RRN,J
                                                   MACMA No.1656 of 2014

4. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A.17 and Ex.C.1 were marked. On behalf of

respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 and B2 were

marked.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner

mainly urged that the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- as against

the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- under all heads which is not

sustainable and stressed for enhancement of compensation. On

the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 while supporting the order of the Tribunal below did not

dispute the factum of injuries as shown in Ex.A.3 wound

certificate.

Now, the point for consideration is, whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

6. The factum of the accident is not disputed. PW.1 besides

examining himself, examined PW.2 Dr. T. Narsing Rao

deposed that on 27.07.2003 he examined the injured PW.1 and

obtained X-Ray and found PW.1 suffering from a mal-united

fracture of the radius right and delayed union of the ulna of the

right forearm. He assessed permanent partial disability of 50% 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1656 of 2014

before issuing a disability certificate and he issued Ex.A4

disability certificate. The petitioner filed Ex.A3 wound certificate

issued by PW.2 wherein the following injuries are mentioned:

1. Abrasion on right forearm 1 x ½ simple injury

2. Abrasion on forehead ½ x ½ simple injury

3. Lacerated wound on right foot 1 x ½ simple injury

4. Abrasion on chest 1" x 1" simple injury

5. Abrasion on nose, simple injury

6. Laceration on parietal region 3"x1"x ½", simple injury

7. Deformity abnormal mobility abdomen.

8. Fracture both bones of forearm right, grievous

7. Whereas the attested copy of the MLC register is marked as

Ex.C1 as a Court document, wherein, it is mentioned that the

petitioner sustained three simple injuries which are as under:

1. Suspected injury on right forearm

2. Abrasion on right forehead

3. Laceration on right foot 1x1

The Tribunal while passing the order observed that PW.2

issued the wound certificate on his own without following the

injuries mentioned in the MLC register and is a stock witness to 5 RRN,J MACMA No.1656 of 2014

the MVOP cases. As per the guidelines of this Court in AAO

No.3518 of 2001, there is a direction to the Commissioner,

Workmen Compensation, Nizamabad, and the Chairmen, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, not to act solely on the

evidence of Dr. T. Narsing Rao and Dr. L. Ramulu in awarding

compensation in the claim petitions pending consideration before

them. Hence, the Tribunal not considered the disability

certificate issued by PW.2.