Telangana High Court

Bussa Venkataiah vs Vallepu Thirupathi on 26 July, 2024

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.151 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District

Judge:II-FTC, Warangal at Jangaon, in M.V.O.P.No.977 of 2007,

dated 14.08.2018, the claim petitioner therein filed the present

appeal seeking the Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the

order passed by the learned Tribunal. During pendency of the

appeal, the sole appellant had died and therefore, his Legal

Representative was brought on record as appellant No.2 as per

orders dated 28.02.2024 passed in I.A.No.3 of 2024. Hereinafter,

the deceased appellant No.1 is referred as injured.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the claim petitioner

filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988

r/w.Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989, before the Tribunal seeking

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries

sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred on

30.12.2006. As stated by the petitioner, on 30.12.2006, while he

was standing for crossing the road at Bapujinagar, Kazipet, in the

MGP,J

meantime, one Bajaj Pulsor bearing No.AP-36F-T/R-2310 driven by

its rider in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed

against the petitioner due to which, he fell down on the road and

sustained severe injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to MGM

Hospital, Warangal, by local persons for treatment. Later, his son

lodged a complaint against the rider of Pulsor Motorcycle bearing

No.AP-36F-T/R-2310 and the concerned Police registered a case in

Crime No.2/2007 under Section 337 IPC. It is further contended

by the claim petitioner that he sustained fracture injury on left

thigh and simple injuries all over the body and he was treated as

inpatient at MGM Hospital, Warangal, where his left thigh got

operated. He spent more than Rs.20,000/- for medicines,

treatment and etc. and hence, filed claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 & 2, who

are the owner and insurer of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle.

4. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the Bajaj Pulsor Motor

Cycle bearing No.AP-36F-T/R-2310 filed his counter denying the

averments made in the claim petition which includes age, health

condition, income of the petitioner at the time of accident, manner

of accident, sustaining of injuries by the petitioner due to the said

accident and disability of the petitioner. He further contended that

MGP,J

the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and as the

vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and has valid insurance at

the time of accident, the respondent No.2 alone is liable to pay

compensation and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company had also filed its

counter and denied the averments of the claim petition including,

manner of accident, negligence on part of rider of motor cycle,

registration of crime by Kazipet Police, injuries sustained to the

petitioner, treatment taken by him and disability caused to the

petitioner and contended that at the time of accident, the driver of

the vehicle has no valid and effective Driving License and the 1st

respondent knowingly and willfully handed over the vehicle to the

driver and also contended that as the petitioner, insured and Police

failed to comply the provisions under Section 134(c), 158 (6), 147

and 149 of M.V. Act, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed

against the Insurance Company. It also contended that the claim

of compensation is excess and exorbitant and there was two days

delay in lodging complaint without any explanation and sought

strict proof of the same and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

MGP,J

6. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration

i. Whether the accident occurred on 30.12.2006 at about 19.15 hours at Bapujinagar, Kazipet, due to the rash and negligent riding of rider of Bajaj Pulsor motor cycle bearing No.AP-36F-T/R-2310, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

7. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner/injured examined

himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13 on his behalf. On

behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was

adduced.

8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and

documents available on record, dismissed the claim application of

the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/injured filed

the present Appeal.

9. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned

Standing counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

Perused the record.

10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

No.1/injured is that though the appellant No.1/injured had proved

MGP,J

his case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and also by

relying on relevant documents, but the learned Tribunal without

considering the same, had erroneously dismissed the claim petition

of the appellant No.1/injured on the ground that Doctor was not

examined and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside

the order of the learned Tribunal.

11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal had

rightly discussed all the aspects and dismissed the claim petition

and interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the order passed by the Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

POINT:-

13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

filed. The appellant No.1/injured examined himself as PW1 and

reiterated the contents made in the claim petition and deposed

about the manner of accident and also the injuries sustained by

him in the accident. He also relied upon the documents marked

under Exs.A1 to A13. A perusal of Ex.A1 discloses that based on a

MGP,J

complaint, Police of Kazipet Police Station, registered a case in

Crime No.2 of 2007 and took up investigation and after thorough

investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of the motor

cycle under Ex.A3. Ex.A2 is the injury certificate which shows that

the appellant No.1/injured sustained injuries of tenderness over

the left hip joint, tenderness at left side of chest and Abrasion over

left foot. Exs.A4 to A9 are the discharge cards and discharge

summaries. Exs.A10 and A11 are the medical bills and

prescriptions. Ex.A12 is the Disability Certificate of the petitioner

and Ex.A13 is the ID card of the petitioner.

14. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant

No.1/injured that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the

disability sustained to him under Ex.A12-Disability certificate. A

perusal of Disability Certificate under Ex.A12 discloses that the

appellant No.1/injured had sustained 64% disability of "POST

TRAUMATIC DEFORMITY LEFT KNEE AND POST OP DHS LEFT

HIP".

15. On the other hand, except taking the plea that the appellant

No.1/injured is not entitled for compensation, the Insurance

Company has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence to

MGP,J

discredit the contentions made by the learned counsel for the

appellant No.1/injured.

16. A perusal of Ex.A2-Injury certificate discloses that the

petitioner has sustained three injuries viz., tenderness over the left

hip joint, tenderness at left side of chest and Abrasion over left foot

among which one is grievous in nature and the other two are

simple in nature. This Court, by considering the injuries sustained

by the appellant No.1/injured and percentage of disability, feels

that the learned Tribunal, without considering the above aspects,

had erroneously dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this Court is

inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal and

hereby award compensation to the appellant No.1/injured under

various heads which are mentioned below:-

Sl.No. Description of Head under which amount Awarded was awarded amount

1. For grievous injury Rs.25,000/-

2 For 2 simple injuries (Rs.10,000/- each) Rs.20,000/-

3 Pain and suffering Rs.10,000

4 Loss of earning during laid up period for six Rs.20,000/-