HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2263 of 2004
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the Order dated 06.05.2004 in M.V.O.P.No.77 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Warangal (for short ‘ Tribunal’).
By the aforesaid award, the Tribunal dismissed the claim laid by the appellant-petitioner for grant of compensation at Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for short ‘ the Act’).
For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P before the Tribunal.
The facts, in brief, are that on 04.06.2002, when the petitioner was going on his motor cycle towards Hanamkonda near Mandakini Bar, the auto bearing No. AP 36 V 3105 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it, resulting the petitioner falling down and receiving injuries and suffering disability. Thus, according to the petitioner the first respondent being the owner and the second respondent being the insurance company, they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
The Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the tribunal and the second respondent filed Counter opposing the averments in the complaint and disputing the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. It is the specific plea that there was delay of 9 days in lodging the complaint and there is collusion between the petitioner and the owner of the auto and, therefore, sought to dismiss the claim.
The Tribunal framed three issues about the responsibility for the accident. The Tribunal, while disposing of the O.P, has doubted the very claim of the petitioner for non examination of the doctors and the delay in lodging the complaint and, therefore, dismissed the claim observing that the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and the petitioner has not received any injuries in the motor accident. Since mere delay and non examination of doctors cannot constitute a ground for dismissal of claim, in case the accident did really occur. Hence, it is just and reasonable that the petitioner can be afforded an opportunity of leading further evidence by examining the medical officers, who treated the petitioner at the time of accident, and to mark the documents and other witness to explain the delay. Hence, matter is remitted to the tribunal, without touching the merits of the case, for fresh consideration by giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. It is also open to the respondents to lead evidence on their behalf as the insurance company would make investigation as to the truth or otherwise of taking place of the accident and the injuries said to have sustained by the petitioner. Since the matter relates to the year 2003, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the O.P. within three (03) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
With the above direction, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in the appeal, stand disposed of.
A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J
August 08, 2014. eha
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2263 of 2004 Dt. 08.08.2014
eha