S. LAXMI NARAYANA Vs. K. VENKATA SIVA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the Award dated 16 -09 -2008 in OP No.492 of 2006 passed by XVII Additional Chief Judgecum -II Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, (for short the Tribunal) both the claimants and Insurance Company preferred MACMA Nos.285 and 3794 of 2009 respectively. Since both the appeals arise out of common award, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The parties in the appeals are referred as they stood before the Tribunal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is thus:

(3.) a) Challenging the award, learned counsel for the Insurance Company firstly argued that it is a case of collision between two vehicles and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the responsibility on both the drivers equally. On the aspect of contributory negligence, he relied upon the decision reported in Agnuru Jaya Ramulu vs. Mohammed Afzal Miyan which was cited before the Tribunal. He further argued that in the connected O.P.No.438 of 2006, the Tribunal held that there was negligence on the part of both the drivers and apportioned the liability 50: 50. He thus, prayed to apportion the liability between the drivers. b) Secondly, learned counsel argued that the Tribunal erred in admitting Rs.1,09,000/ - (Ex.A.5) towards hospital bill. Except PW.2doctor, whose signature is missing on Ex.A15discharge summary, the claimant has not examined any other witness to prove his medical expenditure. So, it is highly doubtful whether PW.2 treated the claimant since his signatures are not there on Ex.A15. Consequently his evidence that Exs.A3 to A7bills and other documents were issued by Yashoda Hospital also cannot be believed. Mere filing of the document is not sufficient and it must be cogently proved. On this aspect he relied upon United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaja Main Shaik and another . c) Thirdly, he submitted that the trial Court rightly rejected certain expenditures like physiotherapy expenditure, home nursing charges etc., as there is no proper supporting evidence except filing bills. He thus, prayed to allow the appeal and apportion the liability between the drivers on one hand and reduce the compensation as submitted by him on the other.