P.Riyaz Khan vs N.Neelavathy Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 4635 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.917 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.11.2009 on the file

of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- VI Additional District Judge

(FTC), Gooty, passed in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2007, whereby the

Tribunal dismissed the claim of claimant, the instant appeal is

preferred by the appellant-claimant claiming the compensation

amount.

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 section 166 of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and under Rule 455 of Andhra Pradesh Motor

Vehicles Rules 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to

award an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for the

injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on

11.02.2005.

                                  2                               VGKRJ
                                                      MACMA 917 of 2012

4. Facts germane to dispose of this appeal may be briefly stated

as follows:

On the intervening night of 10/11.02.2005 at about 12.30 a.m.,

while he along with his friends was returning to his house after

watching a film and when they reached near travelers bungalow,

Guntakal, one Qualis Jeep bearing No.AP 02L 0144, hereinafter

referred to as 'offending vehicle', driven by its driver, came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, resulting

which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

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 accident occurred on 10.02.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of Qualis Jeep bearing 3 VGKRJ MACMA 917 of 2012

No.AP 02L 0144 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to 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.A6

were marked. None were examined on behalf of respondents,

however, 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 claimant failed to prove the rash and

negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle,

and the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved by

the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the

compensation amount.

                                   4                               VGKRJ
                                                       MACMA 917 of 2012

9. Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent

No.2 and perused the record.

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:-

In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the offending vehicle, the petitioner relied on his sole test testimony

as PW1. As per his evidence, on the intervening night of

10/11.02.2005 at about 12.30 a.m., he along with his friends was

returning to his house after watching a film and when they reached

near travelers bungalow, the offending vehicle, driven by its driver,

came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a

result, he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries. The Tribunal

dismissed the claim petition with an observation that the petitioner

stated to the doctor, who treated him, at the time of treatment that

he fell down from staircase in his house and sustained injuries, the 5 VGKRJ MACMA 917 of 2012

same is mentioned in Ex.A2 certified copy of wound certificate by

the doctor. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant

would submit that first respondent was a Member of the Legislative

Assembly and due to fear of the first respondent, the petitioner had

to informed the hospital authorities that he received injuries due to

fall from stair case in his house.

12. The doctor of Apollo hospitals was examined as PW2 by the

injured. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner sustained

two fracture injuries and an operation was conducted to the

petitioner and the petitioner obtained treatment as inpatient in Apollo

hospitals, Hyderabad. It was suggested to PW2 in cross

examination by the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the

injuries sustained by PW1 were due to fell down from the staircase.

The said suggestion is denied by PW2. As per the evidence of the

doctor, the injuries on petitioner were sustained in a road accident

and the petitioner suffered with injuries due to injuries sustained in a

road accident. The medical officer, who treated the petitioner,

asserted that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road accident, but

not fall from a staircase in the house. In such a case, the 6 VGKRJ MACMA 917 of 2012

observation of the Tribunal that the injured failed to prove that he

sustained injuries in a Motor Vehicle Accident is not at all accepted.

The Tribunal discarded the oral evidence of the petitioner and the

doctor i.e., PW2 coupled with Ex.A2 wound certificate.

13. Another objection taken by the learned counsel for the

appellant is that there was a delay of 10 days in giving a report to

the police. No doubt the accident occurred in the early morning of

11.02.2005, the petitioner himself admitted in Bellary hospital

immediately from there, he was shifted to Apollo hospitals for

treatment and he was discharged on 16.02.2005. Ex.A1 certified

copy of First Information Report shows that the brother of petitioner

lodged a complaint in Guntakal police station on 20.02.2005 by

narrating the entire incident and also stated that the injured was

immediately admitted in Bellary hospital from there on the advice of

government doctor, the petitioner was taken to Apollo hospitals,

Hyderabad for treatment and the petitioner obtained treatment as

inpatient in Apollo hospitals, Hyderabad. Ex.A3 certified copy of

charge sheet filed by the police clearly goes to show that the Sub

Inspector of Police conducted investigation and completed 7 VGKRJ MACMA 917 of 2012

investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of the

offending vehicle by fixing the liability on the driver of the offending

vehicle. Ex.A4 copy of the Lok Adalath award clearly goes to show

that the accused driver of the offending vehicle compromised the

criminal case before the Lok Adalath. 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.

14. The Tribunal discarded the oral evidence and documentary

evidence and came to conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove 8 VGKRJ MACMA 917 of 2012

that he sustained injuries in a road accident. The material on record

clearly proves that the accident in question occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the

petitioner sustained injuries.

15. As per the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A2, the petitioner

sustained two fracture injuries, therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/-

is awarded to the said two fracture injuries. The evidence of PW2

coupled with Ex.A5 bunch of medical bills clearly goes to show that

he underwent treatment in Apollo hospitals, Hyderabad and spent

medical expenses of Rs.1,36,300/-, therefore, the said amount is

awarded to the petitioner towards medical expenses. An amount of

Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards nutrition of food and attendant

charges and an amount of Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards transport

charges since the petitioner travelled from Bellary to Hyderabad for

treatment. In total, the appellant is entitled an amount of

Rs.1,63,300/- towards compensation.

16. It is not in dispute by both sides that the offending vehicle is

insured with the second respondent Insurance company and the

policy is in force and the driver of the offending vehicle is also 9 VGKRJ MACMA 917 of 2012

having valid driving licence by the date of accident. Therefore,

respondents 1 and 2, who are the insured and insurer are liable to

pay the compensation. Respondent No.2 being the insurer of the

insured first respondent has to deposit the claim amount of

Rs.1,63,300/- as ordered by this court with interest @6% p.a.

17. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and the order dated

17.11.2009 passed in MVOP No.570/2007 on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC),

Gooty is set aside and the claimant is entitled an amount of

Rs.1,63,300/- towards total compensation with interest @6% p.a.

from the date of petition, till the date of realization. The respondent

No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount of

Rs.1,63,300/- with interest as ordered above, before the Tribunal

within two months from the date of this judgment. After depositing

the compensation amount, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the

same along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order

as to costs.

                              10                             VGKRJ
                                                 MACMA 917 of 2012

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

________________________________ V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J Dated: 03.10.2023.

sj
                        11                           VGKRJ
                                         MACMA 917 of 2012






     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO




              M.A.C.M.A.No.917 of 2012



                      .10.2023

Sj