HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.50 OF 2022

JUDGMENT

This Appeal is directed against the order and decree dated

2710.2021 in O.P.No.173 of 2014, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge, at Kamareddy (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the claim of first respondent herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization and thereby to set aside the impugned order.

2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Surya Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for respondent.

Perused the records.

3. The respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2013. According to the respondent/claimant, on that day, he came to Kamareddy to attend some personal works and at about 2.00 pm while he was on foot through Station Road, one BajaJ Boxer Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-01-P-5447 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’) driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed his motorcycle from his behind, due to which, he sustained fracture injuries. The respondent claims to have spent Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical expenses. The respondent further contends that by the date of accident, he was aged 28 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a washer-man and running laundry shop.

4. The appellant, who is the owner of the motorcycle, filed counter opposing the claim and denying his liability to pay the compensation.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

i) Whether the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-P-5447 ?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, from whom and what amount ?

iii) To what relief?

6. During enquiry, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the respondent/claimant. R.W.1 was examined and no document was marked on his behalf.

7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has categorically held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said motorcycle was not insured, as such, the liability was fixed on the owner of the said crime vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that despite the clear acquittal in the criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., appellant and the delay in lodging the FIR, the Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant, without properly appreciating the evidence of RW.1.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Tribunal on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded the compensation amount and the appellant/owner of the crime vehicle has not made out any case for interference with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. With regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, a perusal of the record and Exs.A1 to A3, which are the certified copies of FIR, Crime details and charge sheet, it is evidently clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driven by the appellant, in which the respondent sustained fracture injuries, which is also corroborated from the evidence of P.W.1 and medical documents produced in Exs.A4 to A8. The medical reports produced by the claimant show that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.05.2013 and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and on the same day, subsequently he was shifted to Sri Maithri Hospital, Nizamabad for better treatment, where he was admitted as inpatient and surge