Telangana High Court
B.Vikas Reddy, Tirumalgiri, ... vs Venu Gopal Goud, Bholakpur, ... on 24 January, 2024
Author: G.Radha Rani
Bench: G.Radha Rani
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3937 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This Appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award
and decree dated 21.08.2009 passed in O.P.No.325 of 2006 by the Special Judge
for the Trial of Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum-XX
Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad for dismissing the claim petition filed by
him.
2. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act
claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a
motor vehicle accident. The claimant contended that he was aged about 20 years
and was a student of M.B.B.S. final year by the date of accident. On 05.04.2006
at about 10:00 P.M., while he was proceeding in a Maruthi Esteem car bearing
No.AP09AA5189 from Saifabad towards Secunderabad and when reached
Telugu Thalli flyover, a DCM van bearing No.ABT4586 driven by its driver in a
rash and negligent manner hit his car with high speed from behind. Due to which
his Maruthi Esteem car was completely damaged and he sustained bleeding
injuries and fracture. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment.
Subsequently, he had taken treatment in a private hospital i.e., Vijaya Hospital, Dr.GRR, J macma_3937_2012 2
Dilsukhnagar. He sustained hairline fracture and permanent disability. Due to
the accident, his studies were also disturbed. As such, claimed compensation
from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the DCM van bearing
No.ABT 4586.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 filed
counter and called for strict proof of the petition averments.
4. The Tribunal after framing the issues caused enquiry into the matter.
The claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the doctor who
treated him at Vijaya Hospital, Dilsukhnagar as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to
A10 in support of his contention. The respondent No.2 got examined the
Assistant Manager of its company as RW.1. No documents were marked on
behalf of respondent No.2.
5. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the
learned Additional Chairman, M.A.C.T. dismissed the petition observing that the
charge sheet filed by the Police marked under Ex.A2 was under Section 279 of
IPC for rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent-vehicle,
but there was no whisper about the injuries sustained by the claimant. If the
claimant sustained injuries, nothing prevented him to mention the same in Dr.GRR, J macma_3937_2012 3
complaint or in the F.I.R.. The police had recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of
the witness and filed the charge sheet. There also the petitioner failed to disclose
about the injuries sustained by him, as such, the charge sheet was filed only under
Section 279 of IPC, but not filed under Section 337 or 338 of IPC. The doctor
examined as PW.2 also stated that he was Gastroenterology Super Specialist, but
not Orthopaedic Surgeon for applying the POP to the fractures. No X-rays were
filed by the claimant in proof of the fractures sustained by him, as such,
dismissed the petition.
6. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the petition, the claimant
preferred this appeal contending that the oral and documentary evidence on
record would clinclingly establish the fractures sustained by the appellant in the
accident. The Tribunal failed to see that Ex.A3 O.P. ticket dated 06.04.2006 was
issued by the Gandhi Hospital authorities and there was no rebuttal evidence to
disbelieve the same. The observations of the trial court were based on
conjenctures and surmises. PW.2 categorically stated in his evidence that the
appellant sustained fracture of left tibia bone which was not considered by the
Tribunal and prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tribunal.
7. Heard Sri P. Gangi Rami Reddy, the learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri B. Yuva Raj, the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Dr.GRR, J macma_3937_2012 4
8. Perused the record. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. In his
examination, he stated that after the accident he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital
for treatment and subsequently taken treatment in Vijay Hospital, Dilsukhnagar,
Hyderabad from 07.04.2006 to 20.05.2006 and spent an amount of Rs.7,270/-.
He was a final year M.B.B.S. student and due to the accident, his studies were
disturbed. For a period of 45 days, he suffered with a lot of pain and sustained
permanent disability. He further stated that Saifabad Police registered a case in
Crime No.183 of 2006 against the driver of DCM van bearing No.ABT4586. In
his cross-examination, he stated that after the DCM van hit his car from behind,
the Police came there. The next morning, he had stiff neck pain and a swollen
left leg. His leg was X-rayed. But he had not filed the X-ray sheet except the
requisition for the X-ray. He also admitted that he had not filed any proof to
show that his studies were disturbed for 45 days and that he had not filed any
disability certificate.
9. He examined Dr. R. Vijay Kumar Reddy, the Consultant Doctor at
Dilsukhnagar Clinic as PW.2. PW.2 stated that he treated the claimant. The
claimant sustained fracture of left tibia bone, blunt injury on left ankle, blunt
injury to vertebra, blunt injury on neck and also lacerated injuries on other parts
of the body. He was treated in Gandhi Hospital on 06.04.2006 for the injuries Dr.GRR, J macma_3937_2012 5
and after the M.L.C. was done, the claimant came to his clinic on 07.04.2006 for
treatment. The treatment continued till 20.05.2006. He applied POP casing to
the fractured areas and gave symptomatic treatment for other injuries. After
looking at the X-rays, a fracture was diagnosed to left tibia and so POP casing
was applied. He stated that the treatment charges went to an extent of Rs.5,800/-
and medicines were purchased from outside worth of Rs.1,470/- on his advice.
He stated that the claimant sustained some pain during the course of treatment
and sustained 20% partial and permanent disability. In his cross-examination, he
admitted that he was qualified Gastroenterology Super Specialist, but not
Orthopaedic Surgeon.
10. As per the claimant, he was studying final year M.B.B.S. at Gandhi
Medical College, Hyderabad and also went to the government hospital on
06.04.2006 at 11:55 A.M.. The date of accident was on 05.04.2006 at 10:00
P.M.. A complaint was lodged by the claimant himself on the same day i.e., on
05.04.2006 at 10:30 P.M. itself. In the complaint, he only stated that on
05.04.2006 at 10:00 P.M. while he was going to Gandhi Medical College,
Musheerabad from his house at Saifabad, one DCM van bearing No.ABT 4586
came from his behind with high speed and hit his Maruti Esteem car bearing
No.AP9AA 5189. Due to which, his car's back portion was completely damaged Dr.GRR, J macma_3937_2012 6
and his vehicle hit another vehicle which was infront of his vehicle, due to which
his car was damaged in the front portion also and requested to take action against
the DCM driver, which was registered as Crime No.183 of 2006. He had not
stated about any injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The statement of
this witness was also recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. by the Investigating
Officer and the charge sheet was filed by the SI of Police, P.S. Saifabad under
Section 279 of IPC.
11. Though the Medico Legal Record of the petitioner marked under
Ex.A3 would disclose that the claimant was advised X-ray to the left leg with
ankle joint and X-ray C-spine. No X-rays were filed by the claimant. Ex.A4, the
prescription of Dr. R. Vijay Kumar Reddy examined as PW.2 would disclose that
the claimant sustained hairline fracture of left tibia and applied POP. PW.2 being
a Consultant Gastroenterologist, the claimant an M.B.B.S. student of Gandhi
Medical College who had initially got examined himself at Government Hospital
approached a private doctor who was not an Orthopaedic Surgeon. It raises a
suspicion about the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Though the enquiry in motor
accident cases is summary in nature and no strict proof of evidence is required,
the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated with the documentary evidence marked
as Exs.A1 and A2. The claimant not being an illiterate, but a final year M.B.B.S. Dr.GRR, J macma_3937_2012 7
student stating about taking treatment in a private hospital that too with
Gastroenterologist not with Orthopaedic Surgeon when he sustained a fracture
injury and applying POP for hairline fracture, all these give rise to any amount of
doubt in the case stated by him. As such, this Court does not find any illegality
in the observation of the Tribunal in dismissing the petition.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the award and
decree dated 21.08.2009 passed in O.P.No.325 of 2006 by the Special Judge for
the Trial of Offences under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge-Additional Chairman, M.A.C.T.-cum-XX
Additional Chief Judge at Secunderabad. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending shall stand closed.
___________________________ Dr.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI
Date:24.01.2024 ss
