Telangana High Court
CIVIL APPEAL 346 of 2003 on 15 December 2003
oF [TELANGANA]
""".1{B$"'so:JsE J !E [J ][US\1'xlB ][h'.Rii5RE*' ][*]
rN rHE [H\GH ]""".1{B$"'so:JsE
*o *o+*
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE ][G. ][SRI ][DEVI]
M.A.C.M.A.No'2583 [of ][2006]
Appeal under [Section 173 ][of ][M'V ][Act ][against ][the ][Order and decree made ][in]M.V.O.P.No.6B8 [of ][2OO4 ][dated 1307'2006 on the ][file ][of the ][Court ][of the ][Chairman']MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum.VAdditionalDistrictJudge,Warangal.
B€tween:
DamsaniRavi,S/o.Komaraiah,aged2Tyears,HamaliFl/o'PanthiniVillage'Wardhannapeet [lvlandal, ][Warangal ][District.]
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
'1 . Mohd Khaja Pasha, S/o.Rasheed Ahmed, aged 32 years, Occ: BusinessR/o.H.No.1 1 -23-'1 878, L.B,Nagar, Warangal.R/o.H.No.1 1 -23-'1 878, L.B,Nagar, Warangal.
2. National lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep by its Branch [ltlanager, Branch Office-ll,]Labbipet, Vijayawada, P.B. No.751.Labbipet, Vijayawada, P.B. No.751.
3. National lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep by its Branch l\,4anager, Branch Office:J.P.N.Road, Warangal.J.P.N.Road, Warangal.
(R-1 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 05.07.2016)
...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Counsel for the Appellant: SRI A. RAVINDER
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SMT. JONNA RAMANI
The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT
-;,/-'&*r,o&'-
,a-
HONOURABLE.IUSTICE G. SRI DEVIM.4.c.M.A.No,2583 of 2oo6
JUD
Challenging the award and decree, dated13.o7.2006,passed inpassed inM.V.O.P.No.68g of 2OO4 on thefile of theChairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_VAdditional District Judge, Warangal (for short .,the Tribunal,,),the claimant filed the present appeal.Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_VAdditional District Judge, Warangal (for short .,the Tribunal,,),the claimant filed the present appeal.
The brief facts of the case are that on 15. 12.2003 lr,hilethe claimant, along with two others persons, boarded Autobearing No.AP 36 V S1BO at panthini Village to go towarangal and when the said auto reached in front of HimaDhaba, Khammarn Road, Warangal, one Tractor and Trailerbearing registration No.Ap 15 T 5296 and Ap 36 V g69, drivenby its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speedand dashed the auto from its behind. As a result of which,the auto turned turtle and the inmates of the auto, includingthe claimant, sustained grievous injuries. Immediately afterthe accident, the claimant was shiftecl to M.G.M. Hospital,Warangal, where he underwent treatment as in-patient andspent huge amount. Due to the injuries, the claimantsustained disability and he has suffered pain, both mentallyand physically. Basing on a complaint, a case in CrimeNo.346 of 2003 has been registered against the driver of theTractor. Therefore, the claimant filed the - aforesaid O.P.
against respondent Nos. 1 to 3, owner, insurer and localBranch Manager of insurer of aforesaid Tractor, respectively,claiming compensation ofRs.75,000/- for the injuriessustained by him.
Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte and the 3.a respondent filed counter denying theparte and the 3.a respondent filed counter denying theaverments of the claim petition and contended that theamount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claimpetition.amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claimpetition.
Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues wereframed before the Tribunal:_framed before the Tribunal:_
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.
1) Whether the accident occurred on 15.12.2003 is dueto rash and negligen t driving of vehicle bearingto rash and negligen t driving of vehicle bearingNo.Ap 15 T 5286 and Ap 36 V 869 (Tractor &Trailer) driven by its driver, as per Section 166 ofTrailer) driven by its driver, as per Section 166 ofM.V.Act?2) Whether the petitiorf so, to *nu, .,,,o,,1'l,l: ;:::i fi rcompen sation ?rf so, to *nu, .,,,o,,1'l,l: ;:::i fi rcompen sation ?3) To what relief.)relief.)
During trial, the claimant himself was examined asasP.W. I and got marked Exs.Al to A8. On behalf of therespondents, neitheroral nor documentary evidence wasproduced.got marked Exs.Al to A8. On behalf of therespondents, neitheroral nor documentary evidence wasproduced.
After considering the orar and documentary evidence onrecord, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimantIailed to prcive that the lcident was occurred due to the rash /.(
and negligent [driving ][of ][the ][driver ][of ][the ][Tractor']Challenging [the ][same, ][the present ][appeal ][is filed']
Heard the [learned Counsel ][for ][the ][appeilant/ claimant]and learned [Counsel ][for ][the ][lnsurance ][Company ][and ][perused]the record.
The [point ][that ][arises ][for ][consideration ][in ][this ][appeal ][is]whether [the ][claimant ][has ][proved ][that the ][accident ][was]occurred [due ][to the ][rash ][and negligent ][driving ][of ][the ][driver of]the crime [vehicle ][and, ][if ][so, ][what is ][the ][just ][and ][reasonable]compensation [to ][which ][the claimant is entitled ][to?]
A perusal [of ][the ][material ][on ][record ][would ][show ][that]basing [on ][the ][complaint ][lodged ][by ][one ][Chirra ][Sridhar' ][a ][case]in Crime [No'346 ][of ][2003 ][of ][Mills ][Colony ][Police ][Station']Warangal, [has ][been ][registered against ][one ][Barla ][Gattaiah for]the [offence ][punishable ][under ][Section ][337 ][of ][I'P'C' ][The]contents [of the ][F.I.R., ][which was marked as ][Ex'A1' ][would]show [that ][while the claimant and ][others ][were ][traveling ][in ][an]auto [bearing ][No'AP ][36 ][V ][5180' ][the ][driver ][of ][the ][Tractor-]Trailer [drove ][it ][in ][a ][rash and ][negligent ][manner and ][dashed]against [the ][auto ][from its ][behind ][at ][Hima Dhaba' ][Khammam]Road, [Warangal ][and ][as ][a ][result ][of ][which' ][the ][auto was ][turned]turtle [and ][the inmates ][of ][the auto ][sustarned grievous ][injuries']The [contents ][of the ][charge sheet' ][which ][was marked ][as]Ex.AS, [would ][show ][that ][on ][receipt ][of the F'I'R' ][in ][Crime]No'346 [of ][2OO3' ][the ][Sub-lnspector ][of ][Police' Matwada Traffic]
Police Station, vtsited the scene of offence, drew a roughsketch map of the scene, examined the injured persons andalso the doctor, who treated the claimant. No objection wasraised by the respondent at the time of marking the saidF.I.R. and charge sheet. The police investigated the matterand found that the accident occurred due to the rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the Tractor_Trailer and filedcharge sheet to that effect.F.I.R. and charge sheet. The police investigated the matterand found that the accident occurred due to the rash andnegligent driving of the driver of the Tractor_Trailer and filedcharge sheet to that effect.
The finding of the Tribunal is that the claimant failed toexamine the eye witness to the accident and non_examinationof the other persons, whci were travelling in the auto, is fatalto the contention of the claimant. The Tribunal further heldthat the claimant ought to have examined the other e.yewitnesses to the accident and the Investigating Officer insupport of his contention. In the absence of any otherevidence, the evidence of p.W. I alone is not sufficient and theevidence of P.w. l is arso not beyond doubt and held that theciaimant has mrserably failed to prove that there was anaccident in a particr,rlar manner and that the accident wasdue to rash and negligeni driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer.
In a catena of decisions, the Hon,ble Supreme Courtheld that in motor accident claim cases, non_examination ofwitness per se cannot be treated as fatal to the claim set upbefore the Tribunal. In other words, the approach of the (''
Tribunal should be [holistic ][analysis ][of the ][entire ][pleadings]and the evidence [by ][applying ][the principles ][of preponderance]of probability.
ln Bimla Devi [crnd others ][Vs' ][Himachal ][Road]Transport [Corporationl ][, ][the ][Apex ][Court held ][that ][a ][motor]accident [claim petition ][is ][required ][to ][be ][decided ][by ][the]Tribunal on [the touch ][stone ][of ][preponderance ][of probability]and not [on ][the ][basis ][of ][proof beyond reasonable ][doubt]
lrt Drrlclna [Fernqndes ][& ][Ors' ][V' ][Joaqulm ][Xaulet]Cruz & [anothere, ][the ][Apex ][Court ][opined ][that ][non-]examination [of ][witness per ][se cannot- ][be ][treated ][as ][fatal ][to ][the]claim set [up ][before ][the ][Tribunal' ][It ][is ][further ][held ][that ][the]approach [in ][examining the ][evidence ][in ][accident claim ][cases is]not to [find ][fault ][with ][non ][examination ][of ][some ]["best" ][eye]witness [in ][the ][case ][but to ][analyse ][the ][eviclence ][already ][on]record [to ][ascertain whether ][that ][is ][sufficient ][to ][answer ][the]matters [in ][issue ][on ][the ][touchstone][ of ][prePonderance ][of]probabilitY. [ln][ other ][words, ][the ][aPProach][ of ][the ][Tribunal]should [be ][holistic ][analysis ][of ][the ][entire ][pleadings ][and ][the]evidence [by ][applying ][the ][principles ][of ][preponderance ][of]probabilitY.
It is [thus well ][settled ][that ][in ][motor ][accident ][claim]the foundational [fact' ][namely' ][the ][actual]cases, [once]
' [(2009)13 ][scc ][530]'?(2011) [l0 ][scc ][646]'?(2011) [l0 ][scc ][646]
occurrence of the accident, has been established, then theTribunal's role would be to calculate the quarltum of justcompensation if the accident had taken place by reason ofnegligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so,the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings ofthe parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motorvehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mindmust be of preponderance of probability and not the strictstandard of proof beyond alr reasonable doubt which isfollowed in criminal cases.
In view of the above discussion, this Court finds thatthe Tribuna-l had failed to foilow a just approach in the matterof appreciation of the evidence/material on record and it hadadopted a strict standard of proof be-yond reasonable doubt torecord an adverse finding against the appellants. Ex.p1-FIRand Ex.A-4-chaige sheet coupled with the evidence of p.W. 1,clearly establish the occurrence of the fatal accident and thepoint towards the involvement of the Tractor-Trailer inquestion and also the point towards the negligence of thedriver of the Tractor-Trailer in causing the said accident.
With regard to the quantum of compensation, a perusalof the materia-l on record would show that, as per Ex.A.2_Injury Certificate the claimant had sustained grievous injuryon abdomen. Accord.tng to Ex.A6-discharge \_ summary, theclaimant was admitted in M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal on \
15.12.2003 and was discharged on 20.12.2003 and he wastreated conservatively. Admittedly, the claimant hassustained one grievous injury. The record discloses that afterdischarge also the claimant has taken treatment as out-patient in Someshwara Hospital, Panthini [Village. ][In ][the ][facts]and circumstances of the [case, ][this.Court ][feels ][that ][claimant]is entitled to the following [arnount ][under ][various ][heads']treated conservatively. Admittedly, the claimant hassustained one grievous injury. The record discloses that afterdischarge also the claimant has taken treatment as out-patient in Someshwara Hospital, Panthini [Village. ][In ][the ][facts]and circumstances of the [case, ][this.Court ][feels ][that ][claimant]is entitled to the following [arnount ][under ][various ][heads']
sl.Name of HeadAwardedbyAwarded by thisNo.TribunalCourtRs.Ps.Rs. Ps'iPain and sufferin3,000.0010 000.002Medical exPenses [and]3,000.005,000.00extra nourishment3Loss of earninS2 000.005 000.00I410 o00.0020 000.o0FracturesII18,ooo.oo40 ooo.o0Total:
1Sallo',ved and [the]
In the result, [the ][aPPeal]
appellant/ [claimant is entitled to ][compensation of ][Rs ][40'000/-]with interest @ [7.5o/o ][per annum ][from ][the ][date of ][petition ][till]the date [of ][realisation' ][The respondents][ 1 ][to ][3 ][are directed ][to]deposit [the ][said ][amount ][within ][three months from ][the ][date of]There [shall ][be ][no order ][as ][to]receiPt [of a ][coPY ][of ][this ][order']costs.
Miscellaneous [petitions, ][if ][any, ][pending ][shall ][stand]
closed.
SD/.B.SATYAVATHIASSISTANT [REGISTRAR],TRUE COPY//(;'oSECTION [OFFICER]
to'',. ,n" Chairman, MACT -cum- V Additional District Judge' Warangal'Waranoal District:. z. o,i"t6-to 5;; 6d [io ][sri ][Srt. lonni ][A. ][Ravinder, Advocate ][Ramani' ][AdvoCate ][toPl'1gl. ][[oPUc]][.]4. Two CD [Copies]5. One SPare [[CoPY]]obr \
HIGH COURT
DATED: [1311212021]
1ti[E ][STA]it:k'(o()0 5 [t'4in ][202]\\**a,cltJUDGMENT^:IMACMA.No'2583 [of ][2006]
PARTLY [ALLOWING THE ][MACMA]
rN rHE [HIGH ]g$"tsfJlJE [oF ][TELANGANA]"""*lf IVIONDAY, .''- ._TT,VO .''- ._TT,VO ._TT,VO
IVIONDAY, .''- ._TT,VO .''- ._TT,VO ._TT,VO [THE THIRTEENTH ][DAY ][OF DECEMBER]
THOUSAND [AND ][TWENTY ][ONE]
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE [JUSTICE ][G. ][SRI ][DEVI]
M.A.C.M.A.No.25[83][ of ][2006]
Between:
Damsani Ravi, S/o.Komaraiah, [aged ][27 ][years, Hamali ][Fl/o.Panthini ][Village']Wardhannapeet [r4andal, Warangal [District.]
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
1. tr/ohd Kha.ia Pasha, S/o.Rasheed [Ahmed, aged ][32 ][years, Occ: Business]R/o.H.No.1 1 [-23-1 ]B7B, L.B.Nagar, Warangal.R/o.H.No.1 1 [-23-1 ]B7B, L.B.Nagar, Warangal.
2. National lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager, [Branch Office-ll,]Labbipet, Vijayawada, P.B. No.751.Labbipet, Vijayawada, P.B. No.751.
3. National lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office:J.P.N.Road, Warangal.J.P.N.Road, Warangal.
(R-1 dismissed for default vide Court Order dated 05.07.2016)
,..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS
Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and decree made inM.V.O.P.No.688 of 2A04 dated 13.07.2006 on the file of the Court of the Chairman,[\,4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Warangal.ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal,the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the suit andupon hearing the arguments of sri A. Ravinder, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt.Jonna Ramani, AdVocate forthe Respondent No.3.
This Court doth Order and Decree as fo ows:'1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed.That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed.2. that the Appellanucraimant is entifled to compensation of Rs.4o,obo/- (Fortythousand only) with interest @ 7 .5o/o pet annum form the date of petition till ihedate of realisation.thousand only) with interest @ 7 .5o/o pet annum form the date of petition till ihedate of realisation.
3. That the respondents 1 to 3 be and hereby are directed to deposit the saidorder.order._ [amount within three (3) ][months ][from the ][date ][of receipt of ][a copy of ][this ]4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this MACIr/A
SOI_'.S^T'AVATHtASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
1. The Chairman, MACT -cum- V Additional District Judge, Warangal,Warangal District.2. lwo CD Copies3. One Spare Copygbr \\y HIGH COURT
DATED: 1311212021
DECREE
MACMA.No.2583 [of ][2006]
PARTLY ALLOWING [THE MACMA]
*bv