Telangana High Court
Syed Viqaruddin vs Abdul Qadar And 2 Ors on 16 April, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.50 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and Ms. P.Satya Manjula, learned counsel for
respondent No.3-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the
Chairman, (M.A.C.T)-cum-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad
(for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.202 of 2015, dated 08.09.2016 and
thereby, sought for enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellant herein is the claim petitioner, the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 herein are the owners of crime vehicle and the 3rd
respondent herein is the insurance company. For convenience,
the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before
the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that at the
time of accident the appellant-claimant was a student and was
LNA,J
aged about 19 years and was hale and healthy. On 30.09.2013 at
about 2.00 a.m., the appellant-claimant along with his relatives
was travelling in TATA Magic Auto bearing registration No.AP-
01-TV-3862 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle), from
Godavari Khani to Kagaznagar and when the said Auto reached
near Takkallapalli Bus stop, the driver of the said auto drove the
auto in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed one
Lorry bearing No.MH-34-AR-8129 from behind. As a result,
claimant-appellant sustained injuries on his left shoulder and
other multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was
shifted to Government hospital, and thereafter, he took treatment
in Madhura hospital, Kahaznagar; that he spent Rs.15,000/-
towards medical expenses. Due to the said accident, the
appellant-claimant, apart from suffering pain and agony, lost his
one academic year. Hence, he filed claim petition claiming
compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by
him in a motor vehicle accident.
5. Before the Tribunal, the Respondent No.1, who is the
owner of crime vehicle as per R.C., and respondent no.2, who is
LNA,J
the owner of crime vehicle as per insurance policy, remained ex-
parte.
6. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter
denying the manner of accident, age and occupation of the
petitioner and further contended that unless and until it is proved
that the driver of the said auto was holding the valid and
effective driving licence, the insurance company is not liable to
pay the compensation; that the claim is exorbitant and as such,
sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
7. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the accident took place as alleged by the
petitioner on 30.09.2013 at about 2.00 a.m., near
Takkalapalli Bus stand, as alleged by the petitioner due
to rash and negligent driving by the driver of TATA
Magic Auto bearing No.AP01-TV-3862 of first
respondent or whether there was any contributory
negligence on the part of the petitioner?
ii) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and disability
as alleged?
iii) Whether there was any insurance coverage for the
driver of TATA magic auto bearing No.AP01-TV-3862
and if so, does the policy cover the risk of petitioner and
if so, was there any breach of policy condition alleged by
the respondent?
LNA,J
iv) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner
and insurer of Lorry bearing No.MH-34-AR-8129?
v) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any
compensation if so what extent and against whom?
vi) To what relief?
8. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant himself
examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 and A2 were marked on his
behalf. On behalf of the respondent No.3-insurance company, no
witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and
documents placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident
took place due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and
awarded compensation of Rs.6,000/- along with interest @ 9% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit of amount.
The owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e.,
respondent Nos.1 and 3 were held to be jointly and severally
liable to pay the said compensation.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for appellant-claimant submitted that the Tribunal erred in
awarding compensation of Rs.6,000/- as against the claim of
LNA,J
Rs.50,000/-; that though the Tribunal having held that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime
vehicle, erred in awarding meager compensation; that Tribunal
failed to award the amounts under the heads of medical
expenses, pain and suffering, loss of academic year, transport
charges etc; that though the petitioner suffered fracture injury,
the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards fracture
injury and finally prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-
insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, on due
consideration of the evidence and material placed on record, had
rightly awarded the compensation and the appellant failed to
make out any case to interfere with the award passed by the
Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
12. Perusal of record and material placed on record would
show that the claimant/appellant sustained simple injury i.e., an
abrasion, which is evident from Ex.A2-injury certificate; that
except filing Ex.A2-injury certificate, petitioner did not examine
the Doctor, who treated him, to show that he sustained fracture
LNA,J
injury; that no medical bills were filed before the Tribunal to
show that he spent huge amount towards medical expenses.
13. Except filing Ex.A1-attested copy of FIR and Ex.A2-attested
copy of injury certificate, no document is placed before the
Tribunal in proof of allegation including loss of academic career,
incurring expenditure towards treatment for injuries sustained by
the appellant. Further, except evidence of P.W.1, no other witness
was examined. Therefore, in considered opinion of this Court the
Tribunal had rightly considered the evidence and material placed
on record and awarded the compensation and the same needs no
interference by this Court.
14. In the light of the above, the Appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date: 16.04.2024
Fm/kkm
