M A JALEEL Vs. PRAKASH ROAD LINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. M.A. Jaleel, the petitioner/claimant in O.P.No.339/97 on the file of Additional Special Judge for S.P.E. & A.C.B. Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal being aggrieved of granting of only Rs.3,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation though the appellant/ petitioner/claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which had occurred on 22-7-1996.

(2.) Sri Shakeel Ahmed Ansari, the Counsel representing the appellant/ claimant made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would submit that the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.6 medical bills are available which would go to show that the appellant/petitioner had spent Rs.44,360/-. The learned Counsel also would submit that the evidence of P.W.2 if taken into consideration along with Ex.A.5 taxi bill, it would go to show that the appellant/ claimant had spent Rs.16,250/- towards transport charges. The Counsel also would submit that the Tribunal totally erred in making an award for a paltry sum of Rs.3,000/- viewing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/ claimant with an element of suspicion. The Counsel also advanced certain submissions relating to how the investigation would be conducted by police and how the cases would be registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code for lesser offences and would contend that the same cannot be made the basis while deciding the quantum of compensation to be awarded in a motor accident claim.

(3.) Per contra, Sri Kota Subba Rao, the Counsel representing the 2nd respondent would contend that it is not as though the Tribunal had not considered the oral and documentary evidence. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded at paras 7 to 15 and would contend that inasmuch as Ex.A.5 is a consolidated bill relating to transport charges, the same was viewed with suspicion and had been disallowed. The learned Counsel also would submit that even if the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A-6 to be taken into consideration the same may have to be taken to have been brought into existence for the purpose of claiming higher compensation inasmuch as the injuries are only simple injuries. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel would submit that the averments made in the First Information Report also may have to be taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of compensation. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on Rule 476(7) of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989, hereinafter in short referred to as "Rules" for the purpose of convenience, and would contend that in the light of the same the contents of the F.I.R. had been taken into consideration and the Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion in awarding Rs.3,000/-. At any rate, the claim made by the appellant/claimant is exorbitant and excessive. In all fairness, the Counsel would submit that in the event this Court arriving at a conclusion that awarding of Rs.3,000/- is on the lesser side, just and reasonable compensation may be fixed depending upon the facts and circumstances.