B.Veeresham vs Syed Mosin Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1284 Tel

                               1                          RRN, J
                                                 MACMA No.2611 of 2016

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 2611 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

           This     M.A.C.M.A.      is     preferred     by      the

appellant/petitioner   aggrieved   by    the   Order   and    decree

dt.10.05.2016 in O.P No.2637 of 2011 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-XXIV

Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, (for short "the Tribunal").

2. Heard Sri Somavarapu Chandraiah, learned

Counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Smt. I. Maamu Vani,

learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

3. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The case of the petitioner is that, on 15.06.2011 at

about 3.00 p.m. while he was proceeding on a motorbike of his

employee from his office i.e. NDCC Bank at Banswada to have

lunch in a hotel, a lorry bearing No.AP-16TV-3860 proceeding

in the same direction, hit the petitioner's bike, due to which,

the motorcycle was tamped, as a result, the petitioner

sustained a fracture of the left leg, crush injury to the right leg 2 RRN, J MACMA No.2611 of 2016

and injuries all over the body. Police Banswada registered a

case in Crime No.107 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC against

the driver of the lorry. The petitioner was shifted to

Government Hospital, Banswada and from there he was

shifted to Prime Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad, where he was

admitted as an inpatient for 10 days, an operation was done,

rods were inserted and advised for treatment for three months

with bed rest. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.80,000/-

towards treatment. As such, he filed the claim petition

claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter denying the

petition allegations. Respondent No.2 mainly contended that

the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the rider

of the motorcycle and hit the lorry bearing No.AP-16TV-3860.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. To prove his case, the petitioner examined PWs 1 to

3 and got marked Ex.A1 to A22. On behalf of respondent

No.2, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has dismissed

the claim petition by observing that the rider of the motorcycle 3 RRN, J MACMA No.2611 of 2016

was not examined on behalf of the petitioner to prove the rash

and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle

and that the petitioner has also not examined any other

eyewitness to the accident to establish rash and negligence on

the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Except the self-

serving testimony of PW.1, there is no other evidence to show

that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence on the

part of the driver of the crime vehicle. Accordingly, the

Tribunal dismissed the petition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner has

vehemently argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the

claim petition without going into the merits of the case. The

Tribunal also failed to keep in mind that the M.V. Act is a

beneficial Legislation for the victims in accident cases and the

Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view by granting

compensation. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal has rightly

dismissed the claim petition and no interference by this Court

is required and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

                                 4                         RRN, J
                                                 MACMA No.2611 of 2016

10. The petitioner to prove the negligence on the part of

the driver of the lorry has mainly relied upon Ex.A1/FIR and

Ex.A3/charge-sheet wherein it is clearly mentioned that the

said accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-16-TV-3860 and dashed the

ahead going TVS sport bike bearing No.AP-25AF-3070. As

such, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claiming petition.

11. The petitioner got filed Ex.A9 to A12 which reveal

that he was on medical leave for about 270 days for taking

treatment and Ex.A14 is a bunch of medical bills. Hence, this

Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty

thousand only) under all heads to the petitioner towards

compensation.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by setting aside

the Order and decree dt.10.05.2016 in O.P No.2637 of 2011

passed by the Tribunal, and the petitioner is awarded

compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand only) with

proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of

petition till the date of realization. The rest of the claim of the

petitioner is dismissed. Respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and 5 RRN, J MACMA No.2611 of 2016

severally liable to pay the awarded compensation to the

petitioner. The respondents are directed to deposit the said

amount with costs and interest within two months from the

date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. On such deposit,

the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.

______________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

16th day of March, 2023

BDR