Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 157 (AP)

Manne Srinivasa Rao v. Regalla Uma

2012-02-10

R.KANTHA RAO

body2012
Judgment : Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant. Though served with notice, none appeared for the respondents. 2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed challenging the award dated 06-05-1996 passed in MVOP.No. 1221 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Khammam. 3. The learned Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition filed by the appellant-claimant under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000=00 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the alleged involvement of the vehicle namely the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 in the accident. Challenging the said finding, the present appeal is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though there is evidence of PW-1 showing the involvement of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 in the accident and also that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the said car, the learned Claims Tribunal erroneously dismissed the claim-petition filed by the appellant. 5. The reason for dismissing the claim-petition by the learned Claims Tribunal is that the accident occurred on 30-06-2004 at about 03:00 p.m., but the report was lodged with the police on 03-7-2004 at about 10:00 p.m., and that there was delay in reporting the matter to the police. The learned Claims Tribunal was of the view that the appellant implicated the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632, as the vehicle involved in the accident is an after thought and therefore, the claim-petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Here is a case, wherein the injured was examined as PW-1 and he had categorically stated in his deposition that on 30-6-2004 at about 03:00 p.m., while he was proceeding on the motor cycle bearing No. AP-20F-5034 from Kodad to Khammam and when he reached Warangal cross-road, opposite Shiva Wines, a car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. His version is that in the accident he received severe injuries, which include two grievous injuries, and he was immediately shifted to the hospital and after he was treated for the injuries he lodged the FIR with the police with a delay of four days and the delay was being properly explained. His version is that in the accident he received severe injuries, which include two grievous injuries, and he was immediately shifted to the hospital and after he was treated for the injuries he lodged the FIR with the police with a delay of four days and the delay was being properly explained. The contention of the appellant is that the delay was properly explained and the learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim-petition doubting involvement of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 in the accident. 7. As against the evidence of PW-1, there is evidence of official of the Insurance Company, who was examined as RW-1 and according to him, the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 was not at all involved in the accident. This witness is not a direct witness to the accident and he merely gave evidence as per the version of the Insurance Company in its counter. In the instant case, though there is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR, the Police investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet against the driver of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 . The certified copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.A-1 and the certified copy of charge sheet is marked as Ex.A-2. These documents clearly indicate that the Police after making thorough investigation into the case arrived at the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632. In any event, the learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of RW-1 since he was not a witness to the accident. Whereas PW-1 is a witness to the accident and as he furnished sufficient reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have believed the evidence of PW-1. The medical evidence forthcoming in this also discloses that soonafter the accident the appellant was shifted to the Hospital and underwent treatment. The learned Claims Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant inspite of his oral evidence and the documentary evidence; namely, Exs.A-1 FIR and Ex.A-2 charge sheet and the evidence of PW-2 doctor and Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 medical certificates. The very fact that soonafter the accident, the appellant underwent medical treatment in Surya Orthopedic Nursing Home, Khammam, clearly indicates that he received injuries only in the accident. The very fact that soonafter the accident, the appellant underwent medical treatment in Surya Orthopedic Nursing Home, Khammam, clearly indicates that he received injuries only in the accident. The said fact is also established from the evidence of PW-2 as well as the documents; namely, Exs.A3, A4 medical certificates, Ex.A-5 medical bills. The findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal holding that the appellant failed to establish the involvement of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 is totally erroneous and the same is set aside in this appeal. 8. The learned Claims Tribunal considering the two grievous and one simple injuries sustained by the appellant awarded compensation of Rs.43,000=00 under various heads. The amount granted by the learned Claims Tribunal being reasonable, needs no interference. Therefore, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.43,000=00 to the appellant is confirmed. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The appeal filed by the appellant-injured therefore succeeds and the same is allowed as indicated above, without any order as to costs.