D. YELLA SWAMY Vs. KONDA BALAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the Award and Decree dtd. 2/8/2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.284 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident was dismissed.

(2.) The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 14/3/2014 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on his Luna Moped along with his wife from Mahabubnagar towards Allipur Village, a Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP-22-X-7412, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against their vehicle, resulting in grievous injuries to him including fracture of the right humerus. It was pleaded that he underwent surgery and suffered permanent disability affecting his avocation as a mason and agriculturist. On that basis, compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 was claimed. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that there were discrepancies regarding the date of accident. The Tribunal observed that the date of accident was mentioned at different places as 14/3/2014, 15/3/2014 and 19/3/2014 and held that the claimant failed to establish that the injuries were sustained in the accident involving the offending vehicle. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach in appreciating the evidence. It is submitted that the appellant admittedly suffered a fracture injury and underwent surgery. The FIR, charge sheet and conviction of the driver in the criminal case were brought on record. The discrepancies regarding the date of accident were minor in nature and could not have been made the sole basis for dismissing the entire claim petition. It is further contended that the claimant and his wife are illiterate villagers and the delay in lodging the complaint and variation in dates ought to have been viewed in the background of the circumstances under which the complaint came to be lodged.