Telangana High Court
Mohd. Abdullah Munawar, vs M/S. Sri Balaji Agencies, on 12 August, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.2352 OF 2013
JUDMENT:
1. The Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the appellant
seeking grant of compensation. Aggrieved by the said dismissal,
the present appeal is filed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company and
perused the record.
3. The manner in which the accident had taken place and
the liability is not in dispute.
4. Briefly, the case of the claimant/appellant who is the
injured is that while he was going on a motorcycle along with
his friend Syed Mazzamil Shah at 5:30p.m. on 28.03.2006, the
offending vehicle which is a seven seater Auto driven in a rash
and negligent manner with high speed hit them from behind.
On account of said impact, both of them fell down and received
multiple fractures. Initially, the appellant was taken to
Mahaveer hospital on the same day and on the next day, he was
shifted to Apollo Hospital.
5. Learned Tribunal Judge having considered the evidence
put forth by the claimants found that :
1. the description of the vehicle which caused the
accident was not stated in the complaint.
2. Driver of the offending vehicle surrendered
three days after the accident.
3. Though it was claimed that it was a seven
seater Auto, in fact, the said crime vehicle
bearing No.AP-09-X-0610 was a goods Auto.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the accident happened and it was clearly mentioned
that it was an unknown vehicle. The Driver of the said vehicle
surrendered before the Police three days, thereafter.
Accordingly, the charge sheet was filed against him and P.W.5
who is the Investigating Officer also entered into the witness box
and stated that the Driver of the vehicle bearing No.AP-09-X-
0610 caused the accident.
7. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Anita Sharma And Others vs. New Inida
Assurance Company Limited And Another 1 and Janabai &
Ors vs. M/s.ICICI Lambord Insurance Company Limited 2
and argued that delay in identifying the Driver has no
(2021) 1 SCC 171
2022 LawSuit(SC) 635
consequence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the
judgments stated supra has granted compensation.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
Insurance Company would submit that reasons are given in
detail as to why compensation was refused. Initially, there was
no description of the vehicle which was involved in the accident
as per F.I.R. However, three days thereafter, the Driver
surrendered and the said vehicle was identified. In fact, though
initially it was claimed that it was a seven seater Auto meant for
passengers, later it turned out to be goods Auto.
9. The fact remains that as on the date of filing the
complaint, it was only mentioned by the pillion rider namely
Syed Muzzamil Shah that it was an unknown vehicle. The
description of the vehicle was also not given. The accident
happened at 5:30 p.m. in the broad day light. It is not that
both, the complaint and the claimant became unconscious after
the vehicle had hit them or they were not in their senses when
the accident happened and they could not observe the vehicle.
10. In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the
appellant in Janabai's case, it was mentioned in the FIR that
an unknown car Driver had caused the accident. In the present
case, as already stated, description of the vehicle was not given.
In Anita Sharma's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
dealing with fault of the Driver of the offending vehicle. The
judgments relied on by learned counsel are not applicable to the
facts of the present case. Even Ex.X.2/injury certificate shows
that the claimant was admitted on 28.03.2006 in Apollo
hospital, which is factually incorrect. Even according to the
claimant he was admitted in Mahaveer Hospital on 28.03.2006
and on the next day i.e., on 29.03.2006, he was admitted in
Apollo Hospital. The said fact is stated by the Doctor-Krishna
Reddy, who was examined from Apollo Hospital. It appears
from the facts of the present case that help of the owner of the
Auto/Driver was taken to claim compensation.
11. I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the learned
Tribunal to set aside order of dismissal. Accordingly, the Appeal
is dismissed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 12.08.2024
dv
