THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK
M.A.C.M.A. No.1251 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the dismissal order passed in OP No.901 of 2005, dated 09.08.2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, at Miryalaguda (for short "the Tribunal").
2. The case of the appellant is that on 13.05.2005 at about 08:30 p.m. while the appellant was waiting at the bus stop of Batchannagudem for Bus, in the meantime, a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-24-K-4889 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed from Chandur side and dashed against him. As a result of which, the appellant had sustained compound fracture of distal femur, fracture of right patella and grievous injuries on all over the body. Immediately he was admitted in the PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 2 Government Hospital, Nalgonda and thereafter, he took treatment in Sri Rama Orthopaedic Hospital, Nalgonda. It is pleaded that the appellant was hale and healthy prior to the accident. He was aged about 25 years at the time of accident and was earning an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month on agriculture and milk business. It is further pleaded that the appellant has not been recovered from the injuries and fractures and suffering from pain and other difficulties and is unable to attend the agricultural operations as like earlier and he is not in a position to sell the milk in the surrounding villages and towns.
3. The 1st respondent is remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
4. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the averments made in the petition. It is pleaded that the driver of the Hero Honda bearing No. AP-24-K-4889 was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and he was not PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 3 permitted by the owner of the said vehicle to drive the same. It is further pleaded that as per the F.I.R., the accident took place on 13.05.2005 and the complaint was lodged on 24.05.2005 after lapse of eleven days, after occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the involvement of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No. AP-24-K-4889 in the alleged accident was not correct. It is further pleaded as per the wound certificate, the appellant sustained injuries due to collision of the two auto rickshaws and therefore, it clearly reveals that the injuries sustained by the appellant were due to the involvement of the auto rickshaw, but not due to the involvement of the said Hero Honda motor cycle.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:
1. Whether the claimant sustained any injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-24-K-4889?
2. Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation from whom?
PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 4
3. To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, the appellant himself was examined as Pw-1, Dr.L.Raji Reddy as Pw-2 and one Burri Narsi Reddy as Pw-3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 documents in support of his claim. The respondent No.2 insurance-Company got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.B-1.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on record with regard to the occurrence of the accident and discarded the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record and thereby, erred in concluding that the appellant did not sustain any injuries involving the Hero Honda motor cycle in the accident and that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen that lodging of F.I.R. with delay of eleven days with a genuine and plausible explanation. Further, the PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 5 complaint could not be lodged immediately, as the complainant was accompanying the appellant in the hospital. It is further contended that the Tribunal illogically placed reliance on the endorsement made in the wound certificate that the nature of injury was due to collision of the two autos. The Tribunal ought to have ignored such an endorsement, which has no basis. It is further contended that the respondents failed to examine any one to establish that there was a collision of the two autos on 13.05.2005 and the appellant sustained the injuries in the said accident. It is further contended that mere endorsement on the wound certificate issued by the Hospital authorities does not suffice to disbelieve the oral evidence of the witness, which was corroborated with the documentary evidence.
9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the petition on the basis of the evidence and the material available on record. It is further contended PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 6 that as the appellant had failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petition. It is further contended that there is no error in the order of the Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. This court has taken note of the submissions made by the respective Counsel.
11. A perusal of the record discloses that the appellant-Pw-1 admits that the crime vehicle belongs to one Shyam Sunder, Advocate of Nalgonda, who filed the original petition before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant. Further, he has conceded that the complaint was given eleven days after the occurrence of the accident. In his cross-examination, Pw-1 denied the suggestion of the respondent-Insurance company that the collision of the two autos being the cause of the accident and that the crime motor vehicle did not cause the accident. He further denied the suggestion of the respondent-Insurance company that he got introduced PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 7 the motor cycle as the crime vehicle. He also denied the suggestion that the crime vehicle belongs to Sri Venkanna Yadav, Advocate, who is respondent No.1. According to Pw-3 Burri Narsireddy, who is said to be the eye witness to the accident, he saw the accident in issue, while he was standing at the bus stop of Batchannagudem, and it was occurred due to the negligent driving by the rider of the crime motor cycle. Ex.A-2 wound certificate issued by the Government Civil Hospital, Nalgonda in the name of the appellant discloses that the appellant himself went to the hospital. In the wound certificate, the remarks under the column "by what kind of weapon infliction" show that 'auto collided with another auto at 9.30 p.m. on 13.05.2005'. Therefore, the recitals of Ex.A-2 wound certificate apparently supports the contention of the respondent-Insurance company that the accident in issue took place due to collision of the two autos and therefore, the crime vehicle was not involved in the PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 8 accident. In this context, it is relevant to extract the following observations of the Tribunal.
"...It is a peculiar case where the crime vehicle is belonged to Advocate, dealing with present case on behalf of the appellant, though it is denied by the Pw- 1 the case of the insurance company that this crime vehicle is not owned by Sri Venkanna Yadav, who is advocate of Nalgonda. So, the inordinate delay of lodging the complaint might have facilitated the introduction of the crime vehicle for obvious reasons to have insurance coverage besides other reasons. The appellant has not come up with any explanation as to recitals of Ex.A-2 wound certificate as to head- on collision of two autos as the cause for the accident in this case..."
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the crime vehicle was set-up by the appellant, it was not involved in the accident and that the appellant is not entitled for any compensation and thereby, dismissed the petition.
13. Therefore, this Court does not see any error in the order of the Tribunal warranting interference. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 9
14. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK 01.09.2023 plp PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007 10 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK M.A.C.MA. No.1251 of 2007 Date: 01-09-2023 plp