Andhra Pradesh High Court
MACMA/1058/2010 of Narla Sameer Krishna Vs Rayapureddi Satyanarayana on 31 December 2019
SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI M.A.C.M.A.No.1058 OF 2010 JUDGMENT:- 1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.272 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, East Godvari District at Rajahmundry, is the appellant in the present appeal filed under Section 173
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI M.A.C.M.A.No.1058 OF 2010
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:-
1. Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.272 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-VIII Additional District Judge, East Godvari District at Rajahmundry, is the appellant in the present appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. On the ground that he sustained injuries in the motor accident on 09.05.2001, while he was traveling on a scooter as pillion rider, the appellant herein, represented by his paternal grand father filed the present M.V.O.P.No.272 of 2002, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. On behalf of the claimant, Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B-1 was marked. The Tribunal framed the following points for consideration.
1. Whether the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver R.1? negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver R.1?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to pay compensation, if so what amount and against whom? so what amount and against whom?
3. To what relief?
3. While dealing with issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the claimant proved that the subject accident occurred due to negligent driving of the respondent No.1. While dealing with issue No.2, as to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noticed that the claimant sustained six injuries, and out of which, one was grievous and other five were simple in nature and accordingly, granted Rs.20,000/-. In the present case admittedly the doctor, who treated the injured claimant was not examined. The claimant also did not produce any evidence to show the expenses, if any, incurred by him towards medical expenses. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal rightly assessed and granted the compensation. Therefore, this court does not find any valid reason to meddle with the Award passed by the Tribunal below.
4. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is dismissed. No order as to costs.
5. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this M.A.C.M.A shall stand closed.
__________________________
JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
Date: 31.12.2019RJS
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1058 OF 2010
Date: 31.12.2019
RJS