1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Motor
petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal
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
against the Scooter of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner
were shifted to Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda for treatment.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Madikonda Police Station
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
his treatment. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of
6. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte.
7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter
8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned
i. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent
driving by the driver of vehicle?
MGP,J
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 A10 on his behalf.
On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance
Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of
Insurance Policy was marked with consent.
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 had not lodged any report with 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
respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the record including the
grounds of Appeal.
MGP,J
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 pleaded
guilty 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
about the injuries sustained by him, he got examined PW2-
Orthopedic Surgeon. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the
MGP,J
petitioner was admitted in their Hospital with following injuries
sustained in a road accident viz., (1) Comminuted Fracture
Hummenus Right and (2) Fracture of both bones right. He stated
that the said injuries are grievous in nature and he treated the said
injuries by inserting plates and rods and the patient was
discharged on 08.08.2002. 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 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.A4 is the copy of order in
CC.No.1186 of 2002 on the file of IV Additonal Judical Magistrate
of First Class, Warangal. Ex.A5 is the Discharge Summary issued
by Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda. Ex.A6 is the cover note of policy.
Ex.A7 are the bunch of medical bills. Ex.A8 is the letter issued by
KITS, Warangal. Exs.A9 & A10 are the Memorandum of marks of
1st semester.
17. From the above oral evidence coupled with the documentary
evidence under Exs.A1 to A10, it is made clear that the petitioner
MGP,J
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 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,
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.
AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 1226
MGP,J
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.
21. In the case on hand, the petitioner/injured, during his
examination, deposed that as himself and pillion rider both have
been admitted in the Hospital at the same time and family
members were held up in taking care of himself by giving necessary
medicines time to time, they were unable to lodge complaint before
MGP,J
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 2 grievous fracture injures, this Court
considering the same, hereby award an amount of Rs.25,000/-
each towards the said two fracture injuries. A perusal of Medical
bills filed under Ex.A7 discloses that the petitioner incurred an
amount of Rs.27,420/- towards Discharge Bill issued by Jaya
Hospitals, Hanamkonda. Hence, this Court, considering the same,
hereby grant the said amount towards medical expenses. Further,
a perusal of Estimation Certificate dated 26.01.2004 issued by
Jaya Hospitals, Hanamkonda, Warangal, discloses that the
petitioner/injured underwent surgery for removal of plating on
Right Humerus & Tibia (old fractures) and incurred an expenditure
of Rs.35,000/-. This Court finds the same to be reasonable and
hereby award the same. Further, Exs.A9 & A10 clearly discloses
that the petitioner was studying II year B.Tech (EC) in Kakatiya
University and during his evidence he deposed that he was treated
as inpatient for 2 months at Jaya Hospital and lost two semester
MGP,J
exams and suffered a lot of pain and suffering. Hence, 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. Two fracture injuries Rs.50,000/-
(Rs.25,000/- each)
2. Medical Bills Rs.27,420/-
3. Removal of plating Rs.35,000/-
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/-
5. Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/-
6. Future medical Rs.3,000/-
expenses
7. Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
incurred during the period
of treatment
TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.1,75,420/-
23. As far as liability is concerned, a perusal of Ex.B1-Copy of
Insurance policy shows that the 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.
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,
2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
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
the Award passed by the learned Tribunal and the
appellant/injured is awarded with a total compensation of
Rs.1,75,420/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization payable by
respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The respondents 1 to
3 are directed to deposit the said compensation within a period of 2
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. Upon
such deposit, the appellant/injured is entitled to withdraw the
same by foregoing interest for a period of 318 days, which is the
period of delay occurred in representing the Appeal, as per orders
dated 29.02.2016 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2010 (M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.32
of 2010). There shall be no order as to costs.
26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.20.02.2025
ysk
