Bojja Yadaiah vs Ch. Mallesh And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 564 Tel

Telangana High Court

Bojja Yadaiah vs Ch. Mallesh And Anr on 12 February, 2024

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.668 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

The claimant is aggrieved by the order of refusal dated

04.12.2006 in O.P.No.828 of 2003 on the file of Chairman, Motor

Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge at Nalgonda

Tribunal, to grant compensation of Rs.60,000/- as claimed by him.

2. Heard Sri M. Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant and Sri M. Vijay, learned counsel for

respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

3. The claimant was involved in a road accident, on

01.08.2003 at about 4pm, while he was travelling in an auto. The

driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high

speed, due to which, the auto moved in jig jag position and the

claimant fell down and the rear wheel of the auto ran over on the

right leg, resulting in grievous fracture injuries. A case vide Crime

No.75 of 2003 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC was

registered by the Police, Nalgoda Rural against the auto driver.

KS, J MACMA_668_2007

4. The claimant has filed O.P.No.828 of 2003 claiming

compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Before the Trial Court, in order to

prove his claim, the claimant got examined himself as PW1 apart

from examining the Investigating Officer as PW2 and also got

marked Ex.A1 to A5.

5. The Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on record came

to the conclusion that the claimant did not prove Ex.A3/Wound

Certificate and Ex.A4/Out patient ticket. The accident occurred

on 01.08.2003 and the complaint was lodged on 04.08.2003 with a

delay of three days. Though he claimed that he was admitted in

the hospital on 04.08.2003 and discharged on 18.08.2003, neither

any case sheet nor any documents supporting his treatment were

produced.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that strict

proof of occurrence of accident is not required and delay of three

days is of no consequence since the investigating Officer was

examined as PW2, who spoke about the accident. Hence, prayed

to award just compensation.

KS, J MACMA_668_2007

7. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the

respondent insurance company submits that the Tribunal has

considered the evidence on record and has rightly dismissed the

claim application.

8. When the accident had taken place, the burden is on the

claimant to prove the injuries sustained by him and also his

hospitalization. Merely the claimant had got marked the wound

certificate and out patient ticket which were issued by the hospital

namely Raji Reddy Private Hospital, Nalgonda without

examining anyone from the said hospital to prove the contents of

said documents. In the absence of proving that the claimant was

hospitalized and treated in the said hospital, the Tribunal had

correctly inferred that the claimant failed to prove the injuries

alleged to have been received by him and also his hospitalization

for treatment of the said injuries. Hence, I do not find any

infirmity with the order of the Tribunal in refusing to grant

compensation as claimed by the claimant.

KS, J MACMA_668_2007

9. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is

dismissed. No costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 12.02.2024 gvl