K.Pullaiah Chari vs Mareddy Ramreddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 1141 Tel

                              1                                   RRN,J
                                                     MACMA No.2931 of 2014



 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/owner under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order

and decree, dated 26.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P. No.652 of

2007, by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-

cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad

(for short "the Tribunal").

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent

No.1/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of

Rs.1,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. It is

stated that on 24.02.2007 at about 8.30 a.m., respondent

No.1/claimant was proceeding on his Suzuki Motorcycle

bearing No.API-B-4534 and when he reached near

Agricultural Market Yard Office, Pitlam, a tractor bearing

No.AP25-J-9591 driven by its driver at high speed in a rash

and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 of 2014

respondent No.1/claimant. Due to which, he sustained

grievous fracture injuries and he incurred about Rs.80,000/-

towards treatment. Hence, the claim petition.

4. The appellant filed a counter denying the allegations

made in the petition.

5. To prove his case, the respondent No.1/claimant

examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. No

oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the

appellant/owner.

6. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the

Tribunal allowed the M.V.O.P. in part by awarding

compensation of Rs.1,41,370/- to respondent No.1/claimant.

Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed by the

appellant/owner.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/owner inter

alia contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation

to the respondent No.1/claimant as the Tribunal considered 3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 of 2014

two injuries instead of one and further did not consider that

there was contributory negligence on the part of the

respondent No.1/claimant. He further contended that despite

there being no medical evidence and no doctor was examined

in order to prove the injuries sustained by respondent

No.1/claimant, the Tribunal went on to grant compensation

to respondent No.1/claimant and the same is erroneous.

Hence, prays to allow the appeal.

9. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent

No.1/claimant contended that the Tribunal was justified in

passing the impugned order, which calls for no interference

by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. This Court having considered the submissions of both

parties is of the considered view that the Tribunal was

justified in passing the impugned order as the Tribunal

cautiously weighed the evidence on both sides and awarded

compensation to the respondent No.1/claimant under various

heads, to a tune of Rs.1,41,370/- which is reasonable. It is

evident from the record that the appellant/owner did not 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2931 of 2014

choose to adduce evidence, oral or documentary, as such, he

failed to rebut the case of the respondent No.1/claimant in all

the three issues framed by the Tribunal. In these

circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed by confirming

the order and decree dated 26.08.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.

No.652 of 2007 by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

10th day of March, 2023 PNS