Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 132 (AP)

G. Venkatesh v. Mohammed Shareef

2014-01-30

B.SIVA SANKARA RAO

body2014
Judgment 1. The unsuccessful claimant filed this appeal having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1872 of 2001 dated 21.07.2006, dismissing the claim petition against his claim of Rs.70,000/-(Rupees seventy thousand only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Sri C. Vikram Chandra, the learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. I. Maamu Vani, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent. Notice to the 1st respondent sent called absent, thus taken as heard the 1st respondent to decide on merits. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions by the appellant-claimant in nutshell are that the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law and tribunal went wrong in totally dismissing the claim petition without cogent and without appreciation of Exs.A-1 to A-6 which reveals the accident, in which the claimant sustained injuries from rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and hence, to allow the claim petition as prayed for by setting aside the dismissal award of the Tribunal. 4. Whereas it is the contention of the 2nd respondent-insurer, since 1st respondent owner remained exparte before the Tribunal and not put forth his appearance herein, that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion for no proof of any injuries sustained by the claimant muchless from any rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver and even the M.L.C filed covered by Ex.A-3 speak while admitted in hospital, left against the medical advise without taking treatment is an indication of no injuries suffered as otherwise it could mention thereby sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition impugning herein is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court and if so with what observations? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 6. 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition impugning herein is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court and if so with what observations? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 6. The fact that on 26.09.2000 the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 12 T 8987 of the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent in which the claimant sustained the injury not in dispute practically from the issue No.1 answered against the respondents and in favour of the claimant as per para 4 of the award of the Tribunal. 7. Now, the only thing to be decided is that the claimant sustained any injury in the said accident and if so what is the compensation to be awarded. As per F.I.R which set the law in motion, within no lapse of time of occurrence, it speaks the claimant sustained head injury and other injuries. Details of which no where mentioned. No doubt F.I.R is not an encyclopedia but for to take what is the injury sustained by the claimant and the charge sheet also speak the head injury. It is the contention of the claimant by placed reliance upon Ex.A-5 X-ray report and Ex.A-6 X-ray films dated 22.10.2000 of the accidental injury, if at all dated 26.09.2000 as if there is an old commuted fracture shaft of left femor with angulation. The F.I.R no where speaks any injury to left leg even to give any credence to said X-ray or finding of fracture therein. There is nothing to show he suffered what injury as per Ex.A-3, but for that against the medical advice the injured left the Government hospital. When such is the case and Ex.A-3 clearly speaks having left against the medical advice within no time of admission to express any opinion, it is the admission from some injury and not a simple one to say without confirmation. When such is the case and Ex.A-3 clearly speaks having left against the medical advice within no time of admission to express any opinion, it is the admission from some injury and not a simple one to say without confirmation. Thus, the only injury that can be considered is the head injury that is reflected in the F.I.R. No doubt as on the date of accident, the claimant is a student of 12 years age involved in the accident, for which he sustained head injury and it can be assessed what mental trauma created to him at that age with it impact on the young mind atleast for some time thereafter with panic to travel. Thus, it is a just case to consider the same also from the factum of Ex.A-3 no where mentioned simple injury but for opinion not expressed as left against the medical advice and from the fact that there is no other record to show head injury gives any complication any longer. Thereby an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the head injury taken as it is a grievous with medical expenses, extra nourishment an amount of Rs.2,000/- i.e., Rs.12,000/-is just compensation to award. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. POINT -2: 8. Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is partly allowed while setting aside the dismissal award of the Tribunal by granting compensation of Rs.12,000/-with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of appeal till the date of realization. Respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. The respondents are hereby directed to deposit said amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the claimant can execute and recover. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount after deposit is made by filing necessary petition before the Tribunal. There is no order as to costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.