Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 992 (AP)

Javaji Padmavathi Padmavathamma v. Kondanna

2023-07-05

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2012 of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur, passed in M.V.O.P.No. 435 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 28.07.2008, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/petitioner. 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. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows: On 28.07.2008 the petitioner and her husband were proceeding from Vadiyampeta to Kondapuram to call on her sister-in-law, namely, Punyavathi, who sustained electric shock, on a TVS XL bearing registration No. AP 02B 4994 and when they reached near Narpala cross roads, a tractor-trailer bearing registration Nos. AP 02W 7823 and AP 02W 7824 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction in wrong route and dashed against the TVS XL. Resultantly, the petitioner and her husband sustained injuries. On a report, a case in crime No. 90 of 2008 of B.K. Samudram P.S. was registered against the driver of the tractor-trailer. The 1st respondent being the owner and the 2nd respondent being the insurer of the tractor-trailer are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. The 1st respondent was set ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident and age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that the driver of the tractor-trailer was holding driving licence to drive tractor-trailer non-transport, but he was driving the offending tractor-trailer transport and that there is a delay four days in filing the complaint. 5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 28.07.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. near Narpala cross roads was due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer bearing Nos. AP 02W 7823 and AP 02W 7824 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? Whether the accident occurred on 28.07.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. near Narpala cross roads was due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer bearing Nos. AP 02W 7823 and AP 02W 7824 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner received injuries in that accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which respondent 4. To what relief? 6. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the appellant/petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.Ws.1 and 2 were marked and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and Exs.X.1 to X.4 were marked. 7. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal found that there was a delay in lodging the first information report and the reasons for the delay were not at all explained by the petitioner and that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Assailing the legal validity of the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal is preferred by the petitioner. 8. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 9. The proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are in the nature of summary enquiry, whereas in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove the case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt. 10. The paramount question that falls for adjudication in this appeal is, whether the delay in lodging the first information report is a ground to doubt the case of the petitioner and whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? 11. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent 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 FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 12. The legal position in this regard has been well settled. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. 12. The legal position in this regard has been well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinrayan, (2011) 4 SCC 693 had an occasion to deal with the similar issue. In the said case, it is held as under: “Lodging of FIR certainly proves the factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.” 13. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor-trailer, the petitioner got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked the attested copy of first information report as Ex.A.1. In her evidence, she clearly stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer. Ex.A.1 goes to show that after the accident, a complaint was lodged in B.K. Samudram P.S. and the same was registered as a case in crime No. 90 of 2008. The petitioner did not file the charge sheet and also not got marked the same before the Tribunal. But, R.W.1, the Assistant Manager of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, categorically admitted in his evidence in cross-examination that after investigation of the crime, a charge sheet was filed by the police against the driver of the offending tractor-trailer. The evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 and the categorical admission of R.W.1 in his cross-examination specifically prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. 14. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is that the driver of the tractor-trailer was holding driving licence to drive tractor-trailer (non-transport), but he was driving tractor-trailer (transport). 14. Another contention taken by the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance company is that the driver of the tractor-trailer was holding driving licence to drive tractor-trailer (non-transport), but he was driving tractor-trailer (transport). The evidence of R.W.2, who is an employee of R.T.A. Office, clearly goes to show that the driver of the offending tractor-trailer is having driving licence for tractor-trailer and it does not have transport endorsement. R.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that the tractor-trailer is a light motor vehicle and with the same skills, the driver can drive tractortrailer non transport and tractor-trailer transport. R.W.1 also admitted in his evidence that the tractor-trailer was insured with their Insurance company under Ex.B.1-policy and the policy was also in force at the time of accident, therefore, there were no violations of the conditions of Ex.B.1-policy. In view of the above reasons, I am of the opinion that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 15. The appellant/claimant claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident. As per Ex.A.2- attested copy of wound certificate, she sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. P.W.2, Dr.K.V.Mohan Reddy, M.D. of YSR Memoriam Hospital, Anantapur, who treated the petitioner, deposed in her evidence that earlier, he was the consultant in Divyasree Hospital, Anantapur and he examined the petitioner on 29.07.2008 in the said hospital and the petitioner sustained compound fracture of ankle joint and foot and fracture of both bones of left leg. He further stated in his evidence that the petitioner was operated on 30.07.2008 and discharged on 15.08.2008 and she came for regular follow up and the two injuries are grievous in nature and another injury is simple in nature. Exs.A.4-medical bills and Ex.A.5-medical prescriptions were confronted through P.W.2 in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly proves that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. Therefore, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded for two grievous injuries i.e., @ Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- is awarded for one simple injury. 16. Exs.A.4-medical bills and Ex.A.5-medical prescriptions were confronted through P.W.2 in his evidence. The evidence of P.W.2 clearly proves that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. Therefore, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded for two grievous injuries i.e., @ Rs.15,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- is awarded for one simple injury. 16. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence of P.W.2 and considering Exs.A.4 and A.5, awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings because the petitioner sustained two fracture injuries and her left leg was also operated in a private hospital and she was unable to do any work at least for a period of 4 to 5 months. There is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. 17. The petitioner relied on Ex.A.6-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Anantapur. As per the petitioner, she sustained 40% disability. The Tribunal held in its order that the petitioner did not examine any Member of the Medical Board to prove Ex.A.6. The Tribunal, by giving cogent reasons, came to the conclusion that in the absence of proof of Ex.A.6, it is not possible to decide that the petitioner sustained permanent disability. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal gave the said finding. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said finding given by the Tribunal. Moreover, it is settled law that the disability to a particular limb cannot be treated as disability to the whole body. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation under the head ‘disability’. 18. As stated supra, this Court awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs.3,000/- for one simple injury. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings which was confirmed by this Court. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.4,000/- is awarded towards nutrition of food and attendant charges. In total, an amount of 1,05,000/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioner. 19. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. In total, an amount of 1,05,000/- is awarded towards compensation to the petitioner. 19. For the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order and decree dated 19.05.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Anantapur in M.V.O.P.No. 435 of 2010 are hereby set aside. Consequently, M.V.O.P.No. 435 of 2010 is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- to the petitioner with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit by the respondents. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with costs and interest before the Tribunal, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs in the appeal. 21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.