Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1200 (AP)

Marisetty Lakshmi v. Appikonda Apparao

2023-08-16

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.294 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle 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 Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 towards compensation for the injuries sustained by her in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 4/10/2007. 4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows: On 4/10/2007 at about 11.15 a.m. the petitioner and two other passengers boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 31Y 5519, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', to go to Yelamanchili and when the auto reached near Cashewnut Factory, Narasingabilli, NH-5 road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes, resulting which the petitioner fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries, hence the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2, 00, 000.00 towards compensation. 5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim of the claimant and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 4/10/2007 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 31 Y 5519 by its driver as pleaded by petitioner? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 were marked. 8. iii. To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioner, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5 and Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 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 claimant miserably failed to establish the injuries sustained by her in a road accident and accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount. 9. Heard Smt Jayanthi S.C.Sekhar, learned counsel for petitioner and Smt S.Pranathi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. Now, the points for consideration are: 1. Whether the Tribunal justified in holding that the claimant failed to prove that she received injuries in the alleged accident dtd. 4/10/2007, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto? 2. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? If so, to what extent? 11. POINT Nos.1 and 2:- The claimant, who was examined as PW1 testified that on 4/10/2007 at about 11.15 a.m. she along with other passengers boarded an auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 31Y 5519 to go to Yelamanchili and when the auto reached near Cashewnut Factory, Narasingabilli, NH-5 road, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes, resulting which, she sustained injuries. The petitioner also relied on Ex.A1 certified copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet. In order to prove her case, the claimant examined T.Bhaskara Rao, retired Assistant Sub Inspector of police as PW2. PW2 supported the case of the petitioner. He testified that basing on the report given by PW1, he registered a case against the driver of offending vehicle and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against him. 12. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the main ground of inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by the petitioner and so also the delay of giving report to the police. The law is well settled in a judgment of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others in Civil Appeal No.1926 of 2011. 12. The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the main ground of inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by the petitioner and so also the delay of giving report to the police. The law is well settled in a judgment of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others in Civil Appeal No.1926 of 2011. In that decision the Apex Court held that "delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupied the mind the kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to getting the victim treated rather than rushing to the Police Station". In the said judgment, the Apex Court further held that "in cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with closure scrutiny and in doing so, should also scrutinize the contents of First Information Report. 13. PW1 testified in her evidence that on 4/10/2007 at about 11.15 a.m. the petitioner and two other passengers boarded the offending vehicle to go to Yelamanchili and when the auto reached near Cashewnut Factory, Narasingabilli, the driver of the offending vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes, resulting which she fell on the road and sustained injuries. In Ex.A1, PW1 has clearly stated about the reasons for delay in filing the complaint. In Ex.A1, PW1 stated that after receipt of injuries in the Motor Vehicles accident dtd. 4/10/2007, she was taken to Yalamanchili hospital, after taking treatment in that hospital, she was joined in NTR hospital at Anakapalli, due to ignorance of the case, she could not give report, immediately after the accident, in the police station, after taking treatment and after came to know about the case, on 10/11/2007, she gave report in the police station. Petitioner clearly explained the reasons in Ex.A1 about the delay of lodging complaint in the police station. The First Information Report is marked as Ex.A1 through PW1. Ex.A1 clearly goes to show that the crime was registered against the driver of the offending auto. Petitioner clearly explained the reasons in Ex.A1 about the delay of lodging complaint in the police station. The First Information Report is marked as Ex.A1 through PW1. Ex.A1 clearly goes to show that the crime was registered against the driver of the offending auto. Ex.A3 attested copy of charge sheet shows that after registering the case against the driver of the offending auto, the concerned police investigated the case and by fixing the liability on the driver of the offending auto, filed the charge sheet against the driver of offending auto. The petitioner to discharge her burden relied on Ex.A1, Ex.A3 and her testimony as PW1 and also the evidence of PW2. To disprove the evidence produced by the petitioner, no evidence is produced by the respondents. In the case of K.Rajani and others Vs. M.Satyanarayana Goud and another, 2015 ACJ 797 . this Court held that "when the Insurance Company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenged the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be in correct it is for the Insurance Company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false". 14. The claim petition is filed by the claimant under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of Motor Vehicle. The claimant has to establish her case on the touch stone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petitioner seeking compensation on account of injuries in a road traffic accident. The evidence of PW1 proves that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident. But to rebut the said evidence, no evidence is produced by the respondents. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons it is undoubtedly clear that the claimant sustained injuries in a road accident, which was caused by the driver of the offending auto and because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto only, the claim petitioner sustained injuries. 15. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A2 would certificate, clearly shows that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries and one simple injury. 15. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A2 would certificate, clearly shows that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries and one simple injury. No doubt the claimant failed to examine the medical officer, who treated her and who issued Ex.A2 wound certificate for the injuries sustained by her. The same is not disputed by the respondents. The material on record proves that the accident in question was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle auto, in which the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries and one simple injury. Therefore, an amount of Rs.18, 000.00 (Rs.6, 000.00 for each grievous injury) is awarded for three grievous injuries and an amount of Rs.2, 000.00 is awarded for one simple injury. The claimant is also entitled an amount of Rs.3, 000.00 towards medical expenses, an amount of Rs.4, 000.00 towards nutrition of food and attendant charges and an amount of Rs.3, 000.00 towards transport charges. In total, the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.30, 000.00 towards compensation. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle is insured with second respondent Insurance company and the policy is also in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is having valid driving licence at the time of accident, the same is supported by RW2 Smt Y.Ramalakshmi, Senior Assistant, RTO office. As per the evidence of RW2, the driver of the auto is having valid driving licence by the date of accident. Therefore, the second respondent Insurance Company has to indemnify the first respondent/ owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the second respondent is having liability to pay the compensation as ordered above. Accordingly, the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 16. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed and the order dtd. 6/3/2012 passed in MVOP No.294/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle is set aside and the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.30, 000.00 towards total compensation with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.30, 000.00 with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. The second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.30, 000.00 with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal. 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.