JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.506 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge at Warangal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the M.V.O.P filed by the claimants for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehicle accident.

The brief facts of the case are that on 14.03.2014, the appellant herein went to meet Mr. S. Shankar, Professor in NIT, Fathimanagar, Kazipet on the motorcycle of her husband bearing No.AP-20-AA-1248 and after meeting the professor when she was returning as pillion rider on her husband motorcycle at about 07.50 P.M., the respondent No.1 who was driving auto bearing No.AP-36-V-3134 (hereinafter referred as “Crime Vehicle”) drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the motorcycle from back side. As a result, the appellant suffered grievous head injury, bilateral parietal traumatic acute subarachnoid hemorrhage and laceration of scalp. The appellant was treated at Rohini Super Specialty Hospital from 14.03.2014 to 18.03.2014. Basing on the complaint, a case in Crime No.53 of 2014 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. Appellant herein filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. The Tribunal upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the aforesaid claim petition. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant herein filed the present appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition on the technical ground that the appellant filed only attested copies of the police and medical records rather than certified or original copies. It is further submitted that since the Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial legislation intended to grant just compensation to accident victims, the Tribunal should have evaluated the material placed before it rather than dismissing the application at the threshold. Thus the learned counsel prayed this Court to set aside the impugned award and grant just and reasonable compensation to the appellant.

There is no representation for the respondent.

It is the case of the appellant that during the trial, she appellant was examined as PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. Specifically, the appellant produced the attested copy of the FIR, attested copy of the Injury Certificate, the attested copy of the Charge Sheet, and a bunch of medical bills and prescriptions. However, the Tribunal observed that while the appellant reiterated the material averments in her chief examination, the police records were inadmissible as they were only attested copies. The Tribunal further noted that in the absence of certified copies, the genuineness of the documents could not be ascertained and ultimately dismissed the claim petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal ought to have exercised its jurisdiction to call for the relevant records or directed the appellant to produce certified copies rather than dismissing the claim solely on the ground of document inadmissibility. Motor accident claims are to be decided in a summary manner with a view to award just compensation rather than being hampered by technicalities. Such an approach by the Tribunal is clearly erroneous and contrary to the settled principles governing beneficial legislation. Accordingly, the impugned award is liable to be set aside.

In the result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2015 in M.V.O.P. No. 506 of 2014 passed by the Tribunal. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication afresh in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to afford an opportunity to the parties to lead further