HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE 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 Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’),
for the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- against the owner and Insurer of the crime jeep
bearing No.AP 25 F 2595, since dismissed by the Tribunal by its award dated
07.11.2006, preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal
that the tribunal gravely erred in dismissing the claim despite the Ex.A.1
First Information Report, A.2 chargesheet with reference to the evidence of
injured-claimant establishes that the accident was the result of rash and
negligent driving of the jeep driver of 1st respondent in
negotiating the turn at Kuttighat on Adilabad to Nagpur road, hence to allow
the claim as prayed for by considering the Ex.A.6 disability certificate at 60%
issued by the P.W.2 Dr.T.Narsinga Rao with reference his evidence. The learned
counsel for the appellants reiterated the same in the course of the hearing.
2. Whereas, it is the contention of the 2nd
respondent-Insurer, from the 1st respondent even remained ex-parte
before the tribunal did not choose to contest taken as heard to decide on
merits, that the award of the tribunal holds good and for this Court while
sitting in the appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismiss the
appeal.
3.
Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as
arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in 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 and requires interference by this Court while sitting in
appeal and if so, with what compensation and with what observations?
2. To what
result?
Point No.1:
5. In
fact on perusal of the Ex.A.1 First Information Report, it shows the
injured-claimant sustained fracture injury to his left leg and he was provided
with first aid at Armour and brought back to his house at Perkit village after
that at 2.00 A.M. (intervening night) he was taken to private hospitals and
admitted as in patient. The police after investigation filed Ex.P.2
chargesheet. The injured-claimant in support of the same examined himself as
P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 doctor T.Narsinga Rao, who issued disability
certificate. No doubt, there is no credibility to the Ex.A.6 disability
certificate issued by P.W.2 including his evidence also as he is known for
creating fake documents and giving false evidence. Ex.A.1 First Information Report and Ex.A.2
chargesheet filed by police after investigation shows the alleged driver of the
jeep was charged under section 338 of I.P.C.
When these facts deposed with reference to the Ex.A.3 wound certificate
of the injured and are referred in the First Information Report as fracture of
the left leg, the tribunal should have considered the same in 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 leg and Rs.15,000/- towards medical
expenses, treatment, transport, attendant charges and extra nourishment
etc. Hence, the claimant is entitled 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 the dismissal 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 thousand only) with interest at 7½% p.a. from
the date of petition (MVOP) till realization/deposit with notice. The
respondents 1 and 2 (owner and Insurer of the crime vehicle), are directed to
deposit the amount before the tribunal within one month from today. On such
deposit or execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same.
There is no order as to costs in the appeal. Consequently, miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________
Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
Date: 30.12.2014
VVR
