Telangana High Court

Sunchula Srinivas vs Md.Riyaz And 2 Others on 20 February, 2025

         THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.625 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Dismissal order passed by the learned

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge),

Warangal, in M.V.O.P.No.340 of 2003, dated 02.06.2008, the claim

petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal

seeking to set- aside the order of the learned Tribunal by awarding

compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be

referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2002 at about

6.30 p.m., when the petitioner, as a pillion rider and one Punnam

Sudheer, as a rider were returning on Scooter bearing registration

No.AP-36B-9647 and when they reached near Madikonda Cross

Road, Warangal District, an Auto bearing Registration No.AP-09-W-

5062 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at

a high speed and dashed against the Scooter of the petitioner. As a

result, the petitioner along with rider-Sudheer sustained grievous

and simple injuries all over the body and immediately after the

accident, they were shifted to Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda for

treatment.

MGP,J

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Madikonda Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2022, conducted detailed

investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime

Auto bearing No.AP-09-W-5062.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that he sustained fracture injury

to his right leg and multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the

said injuries, the petitioner is suffering from pains, shock and

mental agony and lost his studies and spent heavy expenditure for

his treatment. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents who are owner and insurer

of crime Auto bearing No.AP-09W-5062.

6. The claim against Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the

Tribunal due to insufficient address and respondent No.2 remained

ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including,

narration of accident, rash and negligent driving on part of the

driver of Auto, injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical

expenses incurred by him and further contended that the

compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed

to dismiss the claim against.

MGP,J

8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned

Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

i. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle? ii. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries, disability and is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

9. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate his claim, the

petitioner examined himself as PW1, got examined the Doctor who

treated him as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 on his behalf.

On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance

Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

10. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that there is no

nexus between the accident and the offending vehicle and the

petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the offending Auto as

he failed to lodge any report before the Police and therefore

dismissed the claim petition due to lack of bonafides. Aggrieved

with the said finding, the petitioner/injured preferred the present

Appeal.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned

counsel for the appellant who appeared through virtual mode and

Sri V.Venkat Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

MGP,J

respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the record including

grounds of Appeal.

12. The main contention of the learned Counsel for

appellant/injured is that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing

the claim petition on the sole ground that there is delay in lodging

complaint before the Police. Learned counsel also contended that

the Tribunal ought to have seen that as the driver himself admitted

his guilt for occurrence of accident, the petitioner is entitled for

compensation and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by granting

compensation.

13. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent/Insurance Company contended that the learned

Tribunal had rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground

that there was delay in lodging complaint before police station and

therefore, the said finding requires no interference by this Court.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

(i) Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from any irregularity?

(ii) Whether the appellant is entitled for grant of compensation?

POINTS:-

15. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents

available on record. The appellant/injured examined himself as

PW1 and reiterated the contents of the claim petition. To prove

MGP,J

about the injuries sustained by him, he got examined PW2-

Orthopedic Surgeon. PW2 in his evidence deposed that on

23.07.2002, the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital with

following injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took

place on 22.07.2002. The injuries are, (1) Fracture Right

Humerus (2) Fracture Right Tibia and (3) Fracture Medial

Malleolus Right. He deposed that all the said injuries are grievous

in nature and he treated the said injuries by surgical management

and Plaster of Paris and the patient was discharged on 05.08.2002.

He also deposed that Ex.A2-Injury certificate is issued by

Dr.Venkateswar Rao and stated that patient would incur an

amount of Rs.15,000/- for removal of steel plates and rods.

Though PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined, nothing adverse was

elicited to disbelieve their testimony.

16. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1 is the

FIR registered by Madikonda Police Station, Warangal District, in

Crime No.164 of 2002 on 01.12.2002, conducted investigation and

filed charge sheet under Ex.A3 against the driver of crime Auto

bearing No.AP-09W-5062. Ex.A2 is the injury certificate. Ex.A4 is

the copy of order in CC.No.1186 of 2002 on the file of IV Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal. Ex.A5 is the

Discharge Summary issued by Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.A6

is the cover note of policy. Exs.A7 to A10 are the Summary's

MGP,J

issued by Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda. Ex.A11 is the Bonafide

Certificate issued by Vidya Bharathi Institute of Technology,

Pembarthy, Jangaon, which shows that the petitioner was studying

B.Tech II year (EEE).

17. From the above oral evidence coupled with the documentary

evidence under Exs.A1 to A11, it is made clear that the petitioner

sustained fracture injuries in an accident that occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto bearing

No.AP-09W-5062 who himself admitted his guilt on the date of

filing of charge sheet.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that

though the petitioner adduced necessary oral and documentary

evidence to substantiate his contentions, but the learned Tribunal,

without considering the same, had erroneously dismissed the claim

petition only on the sole ground that there is delay in lodging

complaint immediately after the accident.

19. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi vs Badrinarayan & Ors 1wherein, the

Hon'ble Apex Court at Paras 20 & 21 held as under:-

"20. It is well settled that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to

doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are,

AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1226

MGP,J

we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. 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.

In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinised more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.

21. 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. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquillity of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."

20. As envisaged from the above judgment, although there is

delay in lodging FIR immediately after the accident, but the same

should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has

been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it.

MGP,J

21. In the case on hand, the petitioner/injured, during his

examination, deposed that as himself and the rider of the

motorcycle both sustained grievous injuries and were admitted in

the Hospital and at the same time, the family members were held

up in taking care of himself by giving necessary medicines time to

time and therefore, it became difficult for them to lodge complaint

before Police station immediately after the accident. This Court,

considering the reason stated by the petitioner and the grievous

injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment undergone

by him, is of the considered opinion that the delay occurred in

lodging FIR is unintentional and the petitioner is entitled for

compensation .

22. So far as compensation is concerned, since the

petitioner/injured sustained 3 grievous fracture injures, this Court

considering the same, hereby award an amount of Rs.25,000/-

each towards the said three fracture injuries. Since PW2-

Orthopaedic Surgeon clearly deposed in his evidence that

petitioner sustained 15% permanent disability due to shortening

leg and painful ankle movements and he would require another

surgery for removal of steel plates and rods which may cost about

Rs.15,000/-. Hence, this Court, considering the same, hereby

award the said amount towards removal of implants. Further,

Ex.A11 -Bonafide Certificate discloses that the petitioner was

MGP,J

studying II year B.Tech (EEE) in Vidya Bharathi Institute of

Technology, Pembarthy, Jangaon and during his evidence he

deposed that he was treated as inpatient for 2 months at Jaya

Hospital and lost two semester exams and suffered a lot of pain

and suffering. However, considering the nature of injuries and

mental agony, this Court is inclined to award an amount of

Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, an amount of Rs.5,000/-

towards Extra nourishment, amount of Rs.5,000/- towards

attendant charges for treatment taken in the Hospital and

Rs.3,000/- towards future medical expenses. Hence, the

petitioner/injured is entitled for a total compensation under

various heads as detailed under:-

          S.No. Details of the Head            Compensation
                                               awarded
          1.      Three fracture injuries      Rs.75,000/-
                                               (Rs.25,000/- each)
          2.      Removal of implants          Rs.15,000/-
          3.      Pain and Suffering           Rs.50,000/-
          4.      Extra Nourishment            Rs.5,000/-
          5.      Future           medical     Rs.3,000/-
                  expenses
          6.      Attendant         charges    Rs.5,000/-
                  incurred during the period
                  of treatment
                  TOTAL COMPENSATION           Rs.1,53,000/-

23. As far as liability is concerned, a perusal of cover note under

Ex.A6 shows respondent No.1 was the owner of crime vehicle Auto

and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. As such,

respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the

compensation awarded to the petitioner/injured.

MGP,J

24. So far as rate of interest on the compensation amount is

concerned, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2,

hereby grant interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition

till the date of realization.

25. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by setting aside