Telangana High Court
Manda Vidya Sagar, Nalgonda Dist vs Surapaneni Sujatha, Krishna Dist And ... on 28 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.421 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri N.Krishna Murthy learned counsel for appellant/
claimant and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel
for respondent no.2-Insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant
aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, at Nalgonda (for short,
'Tribunal') in O.P.No.1073 of 2011, dated 01.11.2016, wherein and
thereby, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.
3. Appellant herein is the petitioner/claimant, respondent
no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle and
respondent no.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company
before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
LNA,J
MACMA No.421 of 2017
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4.1. On 06.03.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., while the claimant along
with his friend went to Parade village on motor cycle bearing
No.AP-24-L-928 being driven by the claimant on his personal
work and while they were returning to Nalgonda and when they
reached near check post of Kattangur village on NH-9, a trolley
lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-TV-1099 came from
Vijayawada side and was proceeding towards Hyderabad, in rash
and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle
of the claimant, due to which, they fell down and sustained
injuries. Immediately, claimant was shifted to KIMS Hospital,
Narketpally and there from he was shifted to Aware Global
Hospital, Hyderabad, where he admitted as inpatient. On the
complaint given by the driver of the lorry, the Police, Kattangur
Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.27/2011 under
Sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the claimant.
LNA,J
4.2. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 read
with Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of
APMV Rules, 1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the petition till
the date of realization.
4.3. It was contended that the claimant was working as
Attender at S.I.R.T.College of Pharmacy Cherlapally and was
earning Rs.6,000/- per month, that due to accident, he sustained
grievous injuries and is not in a position to sit and walk properly
and he lost past and future income and is still undergoing
treatment.
5. Respondent no.1 remained ex parte. The respondent no.2-
insurance company filed counter denying the manner of accident,
age, avocation and income of the claimant and further contended
that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle were not added as
parties to the claim petition and in their absence, the claim
LNA,J
petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the claim
petition.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed
the following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a
motor accident due to rash and negligent driving of
driver of trolley lorry bearing no.AP-16-TV-1099 ?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ?
iii) To what relief ?
8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant,
PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. On
behalf of insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1
and B2 were marked.
9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of oral evidence and
material placed on record, has come to conclusion that the
accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of the
LNA,J
driver of the crime vehicle and accordingly, dismissed the claim
petition.
10. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for claimant, while reiterating the averments made in the claim
petition, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have seen that the
accident should not have been occurred without negligence of the
drivers of both vehicles and negligence ought not to have been
attributed only on the claimant in the case of contributory
negligence; that the Tribunal erred in relying on Ex.B1-rough
sketch and came to a conclusion that the driver of motorcycle was
in rash and negligent manner. He further contended that
registration of criminal case against the rider of motorcycle would
not any way establishes the negligence on the part of the claimant
and that as MV Act is a welfare legislation, the Tribunal ought to
have considered that the accident occurred due to involvement of
both vehicles and finally, prayed to allow the appeal by setting
aside the impugned award and award just compensation.
LNA,J
11. Learned counsel for claimant placed reliance on the
following decisions in support of his contention.
i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Chamundeswari and others
[Civil Appeal No.6151 of 2021 dated 01.10.2021] and
ii) Syed Ibrahim vs. Union of India, rep.by Secretary to
Central Government, Ministry of Defence 1
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent no.2/
insurance company submitted that the Tribunal, on due
consideration of evidence, material placed on record, had rightly
dismissed the O.P. He further submitted that the appeal is devoid
of any merit and the appellant failed to make out any case
warranting this Court to interfere with the award passed by the
Tribunal and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
Consideration :
13. The main contention raised by the appellant/claimant is
that the Tribunal committed error in holding that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the
2003 LawSuit (AP) 51
LNA,J
motorcycle i.e., claimant. It is pertinent to note that on the
complaint given by the driver of the lorry, the Police registered
the case as in Ex.P1-FIR and filed Ex.P2-charge sheet, which
clearly show that claimant was shown as accused for his rash and
negligent driving leading to non-fatal road accident. It further
reveals that during investigation, the investigating officer came to
conclusion that the rider of the motorcycle drove the motorcycle
in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the rear tyre of lorry,
which is also evident from Ex.B1-CC of scene of offence
panchanama with rough sketch.
14. Further, on perusal of Ex.B1, it is evident that the lorry was
going on the extreme left side of the road, whereas the motor
cycle came from connecting approach road and hit the rear tyre of
the lorry, which show that rider of the motorcycle/claimant was
rash and negligent and did not follow the traffic rules while
entering to the National Highway from the approach road.
Furthermore, it appears that the father of the claimant filed
LNA,J
application on 14.03.2011 before the Superintendent of Police
office, Nalgonda, for reinvestigation of the case and the police
even after receipt of said application filed charge sheet on
24.05.2011 against the claimant after thorough enquiry. However,
the status of the criminal case registered against the claimant is
not brought to the notice of this Court.
15. In Chamundeswari's case (supra), on the date of incident,
the deceased was driving Maruti Car from Perumanallur to
Erode; that at that time one Eicher Van was proceeding in front of
the car driven by the deceased; that all of a sudden, the driver of
Eicher Van has turned towards right side without giving any
signal or indicator and the said lapse resulted in the accident.
16. In Syed Ibrahim's (supra), when the appellant was
proceeding as a pillion on the scooter of his brother, a military
jeep bearing No.84 B 3636--Y came in their opposite direction in
rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter, resulting in
injuries to him.
LNA,J
17. Whereas in the instant case, as per Ex.B1-scene of offence
panchanama, the lorry was proceeding from Vijayawada towards
Hyderabad, on the extreme left side of the road, at that time, the
motorcycle driven by the claimant came from connecting
approach road and hit the rear tyre of the lorry without following
the traffic rules while entering to the National Highway, and in
the said accident, the claimant received injuries.
18. Thus, the facts of the citations relied upon by the learned
counsel for claimant and the facts in the present case are different
and have no application to the case on hand and thus, do not
come to the aid of the claimant.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view
that the Tribunal, on due analysis of the oral and documentary
evidence, has rightly dismissed the O.P. filed by the claimant and
further, claimant failed to make out any case warranting
interference by this Court with the impugned award. Therefore,
LNA,J
this Court is not inclined to interfere with a reasoned award
passed by the Tribunal.
20. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 28.06.2024
kkm
