Dismissed

Smt.K.Kamala and 3 Ors. v. M.a.Raheem and Anr.

Telangana HC21 Jun 2018MACMA/3155/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of a compensation petition, the Single Judge held that documentary evidence contradicted the claim of rash and negligent driving. The Court found no factual basis for rash negligence, confirming the Tribunal's order and dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 19.08.2005 in O.P.No.354 of 2002 was confirmed.

Smt.K.Kamala and 3 Ors. Vs M.a.Raheem and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No.3155 OF 2005

¶3

JUDGMENT :

¶4

This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, aggrieved by the order, dated 19.08.2005, in O.P.No.354 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad, wherein the petition filed for grant of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- consequent to the death of the deceasedK.Bhojanna, was dismissed.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for the appellantsclaimants, the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record.

¶6

Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants would contend that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 3345 by its driver.

¶7

To substantiate the same, the claimants examined wife of the deceased as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2-V.Sambashiva Rao, who is said to be an eye-witness to the occurrence of the accident and got marked Ex.A1Copy of FIR, dated 20.2.1999, Ex.A2-CC of PME report, Ex.A3-CC of inquest report, Ex.A4-xerox copy of insurance policy, Ex.A5-salary certificate, Ex.A6-Driving licence of deceased and Ex.A7-CC of FIR, dated 1.5.1999.

¶8

On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1-copy of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.B2-CC of final report, Ex.B3-CC of

¶9

¶10

rough sketch and Ex.B4-CC of docket order were got marked.

¶11

The specific case of the appellants-claimants is that on 19.2.1999 when the deceased was going on his motorcycle, a jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 3345 driven by its driver came in opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased suffered head injury and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to the injuries. P.W.2 said to have witnessed the occurrence of the accident. He supported the case of the appellants. P.W.1 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence of the accident. Exs.A1 and A3, which are copy of FIR and CC of inquest report are contra to the pleadings and there is no mention of rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 3345. In Exs.A1 and A3, there is no mention that the jeep dashed against the deceased, due to which, the deceased received injuries and succumbed to those injuries. There is specific mention in the above mentioned documents that the deceased did not control the vehicle, fell down, suffered injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. Ex.B1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. It does not support the case of the appellants and it runs contra to their case. When the documentary evidence is contra to the pleadings of the case, it is not appropriate to hold that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 3345 by its driver. The Tribunal had analyzed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and gave finding to that effect. As per the evidence on record, there is no involvement of the jeep bearing No. AP 1 C 3345 in the said accident. No compensation can be assessed and

¶12

¶13

granted against the owner and insurer of the said jeep. They are only parties to the claim petition. The Tribunal had dealt with all the aspects of the case in true sense and assigned reasons. There are no circumstances to warrant interference of this Court. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶14

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the order, dated 19.08.2005, in O.P.No.354 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶15

__________________________
DR.SHAMEEM AKTHER, J
DATED: 21-06-2018
Hsd

Smt.K.Kamala and 3 Ors. v. M.a.Raheem and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.K.Kamala and 3 Ors. v. M.a.Raheem and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr.M.Suresh Vs Mr.v.Raj Kumar and Anr.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Yarlagadda SArala

Poojari Subbarayulu Reddy Vs S.Suresh

Gattigorla Anjaiah Vs K.Sampath Rao and Anr.

S. Roja Vs B. Krishna and Another

The United India Insurance Company , Ongole Vs Shaik Kalesha and 8 Others