Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1021 (AP)

Katakam Gopala Rao v. K. Hari prasad

2023-07-07

V.GOPALA KRIS

body2023
JUDGMENT : The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.676 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur and the respondents are the respondents in the said case. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application. 3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under sections 149 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 21.02.2003. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: On 21.02.2003 at about 11.30 p.m. when the petitioner was going on a bicycle along with one Home Guard by name Bhiksha Rao near R & B Bungalow at over bridge of Mangalagiri, the rider of Bajaj Boxer motor cycle bearing No.AP7N 5277 rode the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and hit against the bicycle, resulting which the petitioner and the pillion rider Bhiksha Rao sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation. 5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues : i. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bajaj motor cycle bearing No.AP 7N 5277? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X13 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 8. iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to PW8 were examined and Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and Ex.X1 to Ex.X13 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 8. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to fault of a car driver, who hit the motor cycle of petitioner and spied away and not due to the fault of the first respondent’s motor cycle driver and the Tribunal dismissed the petition with costs. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount. 10. Now, the points for consideration are : 1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 2. Whether the claimant/ appellant is entitled for compensation as prayed for? 11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- The Tribunal held in its order that since the accident in question is not proved by the claimant, he is not entitled any compensation, however, the respondents are not disputing about the injuries sustained by the claimant in a Motor Vehicle Accident. 12. The Tribunal held in its order that “Ex.X1 First Information Report was given by the petitioner, who is working as police constable in the same police station, to the police on the next day morning of the incident attributing the accident in a rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s motor cycle driver, though PW1 and PW2 admitted the fact that the police station of Mangalagiri is within the distance of 2 to 3 furlongs from the scene of accident, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he failed to report the matter immediately to the police”. The material available on record is that the complaint was lodged by the petitioner, who is the police constable, on the next date of accident and the pillion rider is a Home Guard. The petitioner/complainant, who lodged a complaint to the police is the rider of the said bicycle. The law is well settled that the delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt the case of the claimant. The petitioner/complainant, who lodged a complaint to the police is the rider of the said bicycle. The law is well settled that the delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt the case of the claimant. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an accident that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the First Information Report with the police. Delay in lodging the First Information Report thus, cannot be the ground to deny the justice to the victim. 13. It was held by the Tribunal in its order that RW1 official of the Insurance Company stated in his evidence that the first respondent’s motor cycle was not at all involved in the accident. First respondent is the owner of the motor cycle in question and he is remained exparte in the claim application. RW1 i.e., official of the Insurance Company admitted in his evidence in cross -examination that they have not adduced any evidence to show that it is a false case. 14. It was also held by the Tribunal in its order that “the learned advocate appearing for second respondent contended that the failure of the petitioner to report the matter to Mangalagiri police immediately after the accident would go to show that the accident did not occur in the manner deposed by him and he further argued that the entries in the hospital record relating to petitioner would go to show that the petitioner sustained injuries as their motor cycle was hit by a car, but not by first respondent’s motor cycle rider. But absolutely, there is no evidence on record to show about the statement alleged to have been given by the petitioner. On the ground that the petitioner is a Police Constable in the police department, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner influenced the police and first respondent. Absolutely, no evidence is produced by the respondents to show that Ex.X1 case is a false case. RW1, who is official of Insurance Company is not an eye witness to the alleged accident. On the ground that the petitioner is a Police Constable in the police department, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner influenced the police and first respondent. Absolutely, no evidence is produced by the respondents to show that Ex.X1 case is a false case. RW1, who is official of Insurance Company is not an eye witness to the alleged accident. Moreover, there is a clear admission of RW1 in his evidence in cross-examination that they have not adduced any evidence to show that it is a false case. RW2 is a Senior Assistant in RTA office. Her evidence is no way helpful to the Insurance Company to prove Ex.X1 case is a false case. 15. The claim application is filed under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act. Involvement of offending vehicle in a Motor Vehicle Accident is sufficient to prove the case of the claim petitioner. There is no need to prove the rash and negligent riding of the rider of first respondent’s motor cycle. The material available on record goes to show that the criminal case is settled before Lok Adalath due to that the police have not filed any charge sheet. The material available on record proves about the involvement of first respondent’s motor cycle in a Motor Vehicles Accident, in which the petitioner and another person, who is the pillion rider of the bicycle, sustained injuries. Therefore, I am unable to accept the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant failed to prove the accident. 16. Coming to the compensation claimed by the claimant, the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident. In order to prove the same, medical evidence is adduced by the petitioner. As per the evidence of PW4 and PW6, doctors, who treated the petitioner, the petitioner sustained fracture of left patella and fracture of left tibia and took treatment for those injuries in two hospitals and the petitioner also relied on Ex.A2 bunch of medical bills. 17. The material on record reveals that initially the petitioner was admitted in Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur, later he was admitted in Nagarjuna hospital, Vijayawada. The accident was occurred in the year, 2003. 17. The material on record reveals that initially the petitioner was admitted in Peoples Trauma Hospital, Guntur, later he was admitted in Nagarjuna hospital, Vijayawada. The accident was occurred in the year, 2003. Therefore, I feel, it is just and proper to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injuries sustained by the claim petitioner and an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses to the claim petitioner. In total, the claim petitioner is entitled an amount of Rs.22,000/- towards compensation. The material on record reveals that there are no violations in the policy under Ex.B2. It is an admitted fact by the respondents that the offending vehicle two-wheeler is insured with second respondent Insurance Company and the policy is in force and the rider of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence by the date of accident. 18. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order dated 15.04.2008 passed in MVOP No.676/2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Guntur is set aside and the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.22,000/- towards total compensation with interest @7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.22,000/- with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.