Telangana High Court
J.Sathaiah vs Apsrtc on 10 June, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1415 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 19.07.2011 passed in O.P.No.51 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mahabubnagar (for short, the Tribunal).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 21.04.2007 the claimant boarded auto bearing No.AP 22 W 0739 in order to go to Moosapet and when the said auto reached within the limits of Pothulamadugu Village, one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 737 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and while overtaking the auto dashed the auto, due to which the auto hit to a road 2 GSD, J Macma_1415_2014 side bridge and the claimant and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, the claimant filed the aforesaid O.P. against the Road Transport Corporation.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition including the involvement of the bus, injuries sustained by the claimant and also the age, avocation and income of the claimant. It is specifically contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the driver of the auto and the claim-petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 21.04.2007 on N.H.No.7 in the village limits of Pothulamadugu due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 28 Z 737?3
GSD, J Macma_1415_2014
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
5. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim- petition on the ground that the claimant failed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant filed the present appeal.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. A perusal of the impugned order would show that while dismissing the claim-petition the Tribunal had extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence available on record. The findings of the Tribunal in 4 GSD, J Macma_1415_2014 paragraph No.10 of the impugned order are necessary to be reproduced herein for better appreciation of the matter.
"10. After perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, which shows that the petitioner who examined as P.W.1 categorically admitted in his cross- examination that the respondent-bus not hit their auto, wherein he was traveling but the respondent- bus came and blow horn due to that out of confusion driver of auto dashed a bridge and he sustained injuries. The version of P.W.2 is quite contra to the admission made by P.W.1 in cross- examination. So the best person to speak about the manner in which the accident occurred is the person who drove the auto at the time of accident and who gave a complaint to the police. But the petitioner did not choose to examine the driver of auto to explain the manner in which the accident occurred. Even on perusal of Ex.A1 F.I.R. which shows that the driver of auto himself stated in his complaint that he was proceeding towards Moosapet on that day along with eight passengers and bus hit his auto on the back and then auto hit the bridge and inmates of the auto including the petitioner sustained injuries. Whereas the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that there were only three passengers in the auto at the time of accident which clearly shows that P.Ws.1 and 2 are not coming up 5 GSD, J Macma_1415_2014 with true facts. Further to maintain a petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act proving the involvement of the bus and rash and negligent act of the respondent-bus driver is sine quo none. But in the present case, the petitioner himself admitted that auto driver himself hit the bridge out of confusion, as admittedly eight passengers were traveling in the auto at that time, due to which they sustained injuries. So the evidence of P.W.1 shows that the driver of respondent bus was not responsible for the accident. Therefore, the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent-bus. When the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the respondent-bus, he is not entitled to claim any compensation from the respondent corporation. Hence, these issues are answered in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner."
9. From the above, it is clear that while dismissing the claim-petition, the learned Tribunal gave cogent reasons, based on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record. Absolutely, no ground is made out by the learned counsel for the claimant to interfere with the 6 GSD, J Macma_1415_2014 well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 10.06.2022 Yvl 7 GSD, J Macma_1415_2014 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI M.A.C.M.A.No.1415 of 2014 Date:10.06.2022 YVL 8 GSD, J Macma_1415_2014