Thegulaplally Shankar, vs The Managing Director Apsrtc And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2440 Tel

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA


                        M.A.C.M.A. No.1710 OF 2008

JUDGMENT:

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

Order and Decree dated 13.04.2005 passed in M.V.O.P.No.581 of 2001

by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal VII Additional District Judge

(FTC), Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal).

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 28.04.1999, at about 6.40

p.m., while the appellant was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-25-T-

4069, when the auto reached near Bodhan by-pass road near Peddireddi

Rice Mill, a bus bearing No.AP-9-Z-4170 came from behind in a rash and

negligent manner dashed the auto. As a result, the appellant sustained

multiple injuries. The appellant filed aforesaid OP against respondent

Nos.1 and 2, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries

sustained by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counter denying

the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount

claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed

before the Tribunal:-

1) Whether the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-09-Z-4170 by its driver ?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and against whom?

3) To what relief?

5. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal dismissed the OP. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant filed

the present appeal, seeking compensation.

6. Heard.

7. A perusal of the findings of the Tribunal below, it is observed that

the tribunal invariably made it a point to require the evidence of the

doctor who treated the injured at first instance for twice. Mere

production of a disability certificate or bunch of prescriptions will not be

proof of the extent of disability stated therein, unless the doctor who

treated the claimant or who medically examined and assessed the extent

of disability of the claimant, is tendered for cross-examination with

reference to the documents. From the order of the learned tribunal, it is

seen that injured at the first instance in his petition claimed to have

taken treatment at Maithri Hospital, Nizamabad and secondly he

contradicted his own version by stating that immediately, after the

accident he took the treatment at Government Hospital, Bhodhan. In

view of the contradictions in the evidence of the petitioner, the view

adopted by the learned tribunal with regard to non-examination of the

doctor who issued material documents such as medical prescriptions is,

acquires significance. At this juncture, it is to be noted that there is no

explanation from the end of claimant as to why they failed to examine the

doctor who treated him for twice.

8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances discussed above, I

am of the opinion that the Tribunal has passed a well reasoned order

and warrants no interference. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be

dismissed.

9. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. No

order as to costs.

____________________________ NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J Date:15.09.2023 VRKS

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

M.A.C.M.A. No.1710 OF 2008

Date:15.09.2023 VRKS