Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The vs Badrinarayan And Others1 Had An ... on 17 July, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the second respondent/ Insurance Company
in M.V.O.P.No.298 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal -cum- III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal and
the respondents are the petitioner and first respondent 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 166(a) of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the
Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards
compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle
Accident occurred on 26.01.2006.
4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:
On 26.01.2006 at about 4.00 a.m. while the petitioner along
with others was going in Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 21V 5163 from
2 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
Nandyal to Hyderabad and when it reached in front of Bridge school,
Malaboyinapalli on NH-7, near Jadcherla, the driver of Tata Sumo
drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the
vehicle turned turtle, resulting which, the petitioner sustained
grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of
Rs.10,00,000/- 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
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 Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 21V
5163 resulting in injuries received by the petitioner?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation,
if so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents?
iii. To what relief?
3 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
7. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf
of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A11
were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and
Ex.B1 was 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 rash and
negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal
granted an amount of Rs.8,80,000/- to the claimant towards
compensation. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the
second respondent Insurance Company filed the appeal questioning
the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.
9. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
10. Now, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any
interference?
4 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
11. POINT :-
In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of
offending vehicle, the petitioner himself examined as PW2. It was
pleaded by the respondent in the written statement itself that there is
a delay of more than three months in lodging the complaint and that
the manner of the accident should not be believed. It is well settled
law that delay in lodging the First Information Report 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 to
rush to the police station, under such circumstances, they are not
expected to act mechanically in lodging the First Information Report
with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus cannot be a ground to
deny the justice to the victim. The legal position in this regard has
been well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Ravi Vs.
Badrinarayan and others1 had an occasion to deal with the similar
issue. Therefore, the law is well settled with delay in lodging the
Frist Information Report thus cannot be a ground to deny the justice
to the victim in a Motor Vehicle Accidents. On appreciation of the
(2011) 4 SCC 693
5 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
evidence of PW1 and on considering Ex.A1 certified copy of First
Information Report, Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet, the
Tribunal came to conclusion that the accident in question is
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending
vehicle. The oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary
evidence proves that the accident in question was occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or error in the above finding
given by the Tribunal.
12. Coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.8,80,000/- towards total
compensation to the claimant towards injuries sustained by him in a
Motor Vehicles Accident. The material on record reveals that PW2
i.e., claimant sustained multiple injuries in the accident and
immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Mahaboob nagar
Government Hospital and after giving treatment for a period of 6 or 7
hours, he was referred to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad for better
treatment. The material on record reveals that the petitioner was
admitted in NIMS hospital on 27.01.2006 and obtained treatment as
6 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
inpatient. The petitioner also examined the doctor, who treated him
in the hospital, as PW3 and also relied on Ex.A9 medical disability
certificate. Ex.A9 shows that the petitioner is suffering with disability
of 85%. In support of the disability of 85% the petitioner relied on
evidence of PW3. In cross examination, nothing was elicited from
PW3 to discredit the testimony of PW3. On appreciation of the
entire documentary evidence and medical bills, the Tribunal
awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses.
The Tribunal held in its order that the accident was occurred on
25.01.2006 and since then the petitioner remained bed ridden.
According to PW1, his son was Managing Partner in Sailokesh
Glass and Plywood Center and earning Rs.17,000/- per month. In
the cross examination of PW1, who is the father of the injured, he
stated that in the Returns for 2003 and 2004, the income of the
petitioner was shows as Rs.40,000/- per annum and in the year
2005-2006 the income was shown as Rs.73,784/- per annum. It is
an admitted fact that the accident occurred on 25.01.2006 and the
petitioner was hospitalized. The material on record reveals that the
petitioner obtained treatment and remained bed ridden, being the
managing partner, he might be getting income. Therefore, the
7 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the annual income of the
petitioner is Rs.40,000/- and the petitioner is aged about 23 years at
the time of accident. On considering the permanent disability
certificate of the petitioner by applying multiplier of 18, since the
injured was aged about 23 years. The Tribunal held in its order that
according to PW3 the disability is permanent in nature and since the
petitioner remained bed ridden after accident, his loss of income is
taken in total. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.7,20,000/-
towards permanent disability sustained by the petitioner and
towards loss of income. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the
above finding given by the Tribunal.
13. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of
future amenities and Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards pain and
suffering and Rs.20,000/- was awarded towards attendant charges
during the stay of the petitioner as inpatient.
14. The Tribunal held in its order that the accident was occurred
on 25.01.2006 and since then the petitioner remained bedridden
and he sustained severe injury to vital part and his disability is
considered as permanent disability. The Tribunal also further held
8 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
in its order that the petitioner has to remain bed ridden through out
his entire life as per the evidence of PW3. On considering the
material on record, and on appreciation of entire evidence on record,
the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.8,80,000/- towards
total compensation. It is not in dispute that there are no violations
under Ex.B1 policy and the offending vehicle is insured under Ex.B1
policy and the policy is in force and the driver of the offending
vehicle is having valid driving licence by the date of accident.
Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, I do not find any legal flaw or
infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal and the award
passed by the Tribunal is perfectly sustainable under law and there
are no merits in the appeal filed by the second respondent
Insurance Company. Accordingly, this appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall
stand closed.
________________________________
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Dated: 17.07.2023.
sj
9 VGKRJ
MACMA 635 of 2012
ON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.635 of 2012
17.07.2023
sj
