G. Prabhakar vs M. Subba Rao And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 3659 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2863 OF 2007
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the

Order and Decree dated 17.08.2007 passed in O.P.No.2348 of 2004

by the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Cum-XVI

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

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.08.2004, while the

minor appellant was standing along with his cycle at Mission

Compound, Jagtial, at about 7.45 p.m., in order to cross the road,

the Tractor and Trailer bearing registration No.AP-15-V-598 and

599 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner hut the

petitioner due to which he fell down and received fracture injuries

to both bones of right hand and other multiple injuries all over the

body. Immediately, after the accident, the appellant was shifted to

Government Hospital, Jagtial and from there to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad. The Police, Jagtial registered a case in

Cr.No.204/2004 against the driver of the Tractor and Trailer under

Section 338 of IPC. The appellant filed aforesaid OP against

respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the Tractor and

Trailer, claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the injuries

sustained by the appellant.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was set exparte and

respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments of

the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is

excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on

record, the Tribunal dismissed the OP. Dissatisfied with the order

passed by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal,

seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him.

5. Heard.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent/appellant strongly

contended that the Court below did not explain proper reasons while

dismissing the above petition and also erred in not taking into

consideration F.I.R and Charge sheet.

7. A perusal of the impugned award it would shows that absolutely

there is no direct testimony to prove the manner in which the accident

took place and how the petitioner is said to have received the alleged

injuries out of rash and negligent acts of driver of tractor and trailer.

This Court is of the considered opinion that in the absence of direct

testimony to prove the accident and the said accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor

and trailer, no sanctity can be attached to the contents of Ex.A-1 and

Ex.A-2. It is needless to mention here that if a claim is made under

Section 166 of M.V.Act, in order to get compensation, the petitioner is

required to prove the rash and negligent driving on the part of the

driver of the offending vehicle, which resulted in accident and its

consequential injuries. But, in the present case on hand, the

petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the crime vehicle in the

accident. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court feels that

the learned tribunal had passed a well reasoned order and warrants

no interference of this Court.

8. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the award

and decree dated 17.08.2007 passed in O.P.No.2348 of 2004 on the

file of II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum XVI Additional

Chief Judge, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

___________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J

07.11.2023 VRKS