Shaik Javeed v. V.Sundhar Raju
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER IVOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL N/ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 20 OF 2OO9 Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.467 of 2005 dated 1011112008 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC) Adilabad.
Between:
Shaik Javeed, S/o. Naseer Business Rl/o. Tatiguda Locality, District Adilabad. ...Appellant AND
1. V-Sundhar Raju, S/o. K.V.S.Maniar, aged about major Business and Owner of Toyota Qualis B.No. AP 10 A E 6197 Rt/o. H.No. 96, Road No. 3, Trimurthy Colony, lVahendra Hills, Hyderabad.
2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, IIIrd M.G.Road, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant(s):Sri. S.Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. P. Harinath Gupta The Court made the following: Judgment
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER M.A.C.M.A.No.2O of 2OO9 JUDGMENT:
I The appellant/ claimant filed the present appeal as he was unsuccessful to seek compensation in O.P.No.467 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribuna_lcum-ll Addl. District Judge (FTC) at Adilabad (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad.
2.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.
.) The claimant has filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,0O,O0O/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal had assessed the compensation at Rs.36,O0O/-.
4.
The case of the claimant is that while himself along with his wife were going on a motorcycle, the offending vehicle which is a Toyota Qua-lis came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle from behind, resulting in falling down of claimant and sustaining injuries.
KS/ J MACMA_20_2()09 5.
The Tribunal found that though it is the case of the claimant that the Qualis vehicle bearing No.Ap 10AE_6197 was responsible for the accident, however, denied to grant compensation on the ground that negligence was not proved on the part of the driver of Qualis vehicle.
6.
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in the FIR itself, it was mentioned that the eualis vehicle was responsible for the accident, however, the final report of the investigation was not filed before the Tribunal. That in itself would not disentitle the claim of the claimant since the petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act. 7 .
In a claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, proof of 'fault' is dispensed with. Admittedly, the accident happened in between Qualis vehicle and two wheeler on which, the claimant was going. The claimant has chosen to prosecute Qualis vehicle owner and its insurer since the driver of Qualis vehicle was at fault. However, dispensing the proof of who was at fault, compensation can be granted under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act-
KS, J MACMA_20_2009 8.
Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.36,OO0/- as arrived at by the Tribunal. 9.
In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of the Tribunal .dated 10.1 1.2008 in O.p.No.46Z of 2OOS to the extent of finding of liability of respondents is concerned and the claimant is granted compensation of Rs.36,OOO/-, as hereunder: (a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) Respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
petitions, if any, shall stand Pending miscellaneous closed. No order as to costs.
HA REDDY SD/.P.PADMAN ASSISTAN T,REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1-TheChairman,MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-Cum-llAdditionalDistrict Judge (FTC) Adilabad. (with records if any) - - - Z. One"CC to bri. S.Chandrasekhar, Advocate IOPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. P.Harinath Gupta, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD CoPies VY
HIGH COURT DArED 31t07t2024 a;
yr!:- STAfl: o;:
,.
i xr otl &l -i i,:'
JUDGMENT
MACMA.No.20 of 2009 .l'"4, .1i \:_r:gj2 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED.
t*s'\K"
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 20 OF 2009 Between Shaik Javeed, S/o. Naseer Business Rl/o. Tatiguda Locality, District Adilabad. ...Appellant AND
1. V.SundhalRaju, S/o. K.V.S.Maniar, aged about major Business and Ownerof Toyota Qualis B.No. AP 10 A E 6197 RIo.'H.No. 96, Road No. 3, Trimurthy Colony, Mahendra Hills, Hyderabad.
2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, IIIrd M.G.Road, Hydera6ad.
...Respondents
Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in O.P.No.467 of 2005 dated 1011112008 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims TribunaFcum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC) Adilabad.
ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S.Chandra Sekhar, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri P.Harinath Guptha, Advocate for Respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows:
1. That the Ivl.A.C.tvl.A. No.20 of 2009 be and hereby is parfly allowed;
2. That by modifying the order of the tribunal dated 10/1 112008 in O.p.No.467 of 2005 to the extent of finding of liability of respondents is concerned and the claimant is granted compensation of Rs.36,0001 as hereunder;
a) That the compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization; b) That the respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of Judgment; c) That on such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security;
3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and
4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/.P.PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTAN REGISTRAR /iTRUE COPYI SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge (FTC) Adilabad.
2. Two CD Copies Yz'
HIGH COURT DATED:311O712024 DECREE MACMA.No.20 of 2009 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARI'LY ALLOWED .s-,, \ c"?- b YX -<^w --(.oY\ N\\'