Telangana High Court
MACMA/345/2007 of Imtiaz Ali Vs Syed Layak Ali on 30 December 2014
B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.345 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The injured-claimant, aged about 22 years in O.P.No.93 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short, ‘Tribunal’), filed under
HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAOM.A.C.M.A.No.345 OF 2007
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT:
The injured-claimant, aged about 22 years in O.P.No.93 of2001 on the file of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents ClaimsTribunal–cum-V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, (for short,‘Tribunal’), filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (forshort, ‘the Act’), for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- against the owner andInsurer of the crime jeep bearing No.AP 25 F 2595, since dismissed bythe Tribunal by its award dated 07.11.2006, preferred the appeal withthe contentions in the grounds of appeal that the tribunal gravely erredin dismissing the claim despite the Ex.A.1 First Information Report, A.2chargesheet with reference to the evidence of injured-claimantestablishes that the accident was the result of rash and negligentdriving of the jeep driver of 1[st] respondent in negotiating the turn atKuttighat on Adilabad to Nagpur road, hence to allow the claim asprayed for by considering the Ex.A.6 disability certificate at 60% issuedby the P.W.2 Dr.T.Narsinga Rao with reference his evidence. Thelearned counsel for the appellants reiterated the same in the course ofthe hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the 2[nd] respondent-Insurer,from the 1[st] respondent even remained ex-parte before the tribunal didnot choose to contest taken as heard to decide on merits, that theaward of the tribunal holds good and for this Court while sitting in theappeal there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismiss the appeal.
3. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter arereferred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of conveniencein the appeal.
4). Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the dismissal order(Award) of the tribunal in O.P.No.93 of 2001 dated 07.11.2006 is unsustainable andrequires interference by this Court while sitting in appealand if so, with what compensation and with whatobservations?
2. To what result?
Point No.1:
5. In fact on perusal of the Ex.A.1 First Information Report, itshows the injured-claimant sustained fracture injury to his left leg andhe was provided with first aid at Armour and brought back to his houseat Perkit village after that at 2.00 A.M. (intervening night) he was takento private hospitals and admitted as in patient. The police afterinvestigation filed Ex.P.2 chargesheet. The injured-claimant in supportof the same examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2doctor T.Narsinga Rao, who issued disability certificate. No doubt,there is no credibility to the Ex.A.6 disability certificate issued by P.W.2including his evidence also as he is known for creating fakedocuments and giving false evidence. Ex.A.1 First Information Reportand Ex.A.2 chargesheet filed by police after investigation shows thealleged driver of the jeep was charged under section 338 of I.P.C. When these facts deposed with reference to the Ex.A.3 woundcertificate of the injured and are referred in the First Information Reportas fracture of the left leg, the tribunal should have considered the samein awarding compensation instead of totally dismissing the claim.Thus, it is a fit case to award even Rs.20,000/- for the fracture of left legand Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, treatment, transport,attendant charges and extra nourishment etc. Hence, the claimant isentitled to the compensation of Rs.35,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a.Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.
POINT-2:
6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by setting aside thedismissal award dated 07.11.2006 of the tribunal in O.P.No.93 of 2001
by awarding compensation of Rs.35,000/-(Rupees thirty five thousandonly) with interest at 7½% p.a. from the date of petition (MVOP) tillrealization/deposit with notice. The respondents 1 and 2 (owner andInsurer of the crime vehicle), are directed to deposit the amount beforethe tribunal within one month from today. On such deposit or executionand recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There isno order as to costs in the appeal. Consequently, miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
Date: 30.12.2014
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
VVR