Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1064 (AP)

G. Narayana Reddy v. M. Vajida Tabusum

2013-11-26

K.G.SHANKAR

body2013
Judgment : 1. The claimant preferred the appeal assailing the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur (the Tribunal, for short) in O.P.No.16 of 2004 dated 22-11-2004 . 2. The appellant made a claim under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for short) together with the Rules thereunder claiming compensation at Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 15-7-2003. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal held that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident and dismissed the claim. Hence, the appeal. 3. The accident occurred on 15-7-2003 at about 10.00 p.m. The First Information Report (FIR), certified copy of which is Ex.A-1, shows the time of the accident as 10.00 p.m. The claimant deposed as P.W.1 that he sustained injuries at 10.00 p.m. P.W.2 is the doctor, who treated the claimant. P.W.2 deposed that he treated the claimant at about 07.00 p.m. The Wound Certificate also shows that the claimant was admitted at the hospital at 07.00 p.m. on 15-7-2003. Thus, the accident occurred at 10.00 p.m. whereas P.W.2 deposed and supported by Ex.A-2 certified copy of the Wound Certificate that the claimant was treated by P.W.2 at 07.00 p.m. On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal dismissed the claim. 4. Sri I.Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant, contended that the charge-sheet disclosed the claimant as 2nd witness and also recites that the claimant also sustained injuries in the said accident. His contention is that after due verification, Police considered that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident. It may be noticed that charge-sheet can never be a ground to decide the merits of the case. Charge-sheet is prepared on the basis of the material available including Section 161 Cr.P.C Statements, Medical Certificates and other available records. At any rate, in the charge-sheet, it was shown that one Dr. P.Nagaraju, Chief Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Anantapur, who was cited as 6th witness (L.W.6), issued Wound Certificate of the claimant. Curiously, one Dr. M.Atmaram was examined as P.W.2, who claimed that he treated the claimant. The said Atmaram was not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. Thus, there is no correlation between the charge-sheet and the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2. Curiously, one Dr. M.Atmaram was examined as P.W.2, who claimed that he treated the claimant. The said Atmaram was not cited as a witness in the charge-sheet. Thus, there is no correlation between the charge-sheet and the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1 and the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is on par with Ex.A-1 certified copy of the FIR and Ex.A-2 certified of the Wound Certificate, which show that the accident occurred at about 10.00 p.m. whereas the claimant was treated at about 07.00 p.m. The Tribunal therefore was perfectly justified in concluding that the claimant did not sustain injuries in the said accident. 5. I may also add that in the complaint, which was registered as FIR lodged by one M.Razak Ahmed, there was no reference that the claimant was travelling in the offending jeep. Thus, Exs.A-1 and A-2 certified copies of the FIR and the Wound Certificate do not agree with the claim of the petitioner. 6. In that view of the matter, the award of the Tribunal was perfectly justified. I therefore see no merits in this appeal. This appeal accordingly is dismissed. No costs.