Telangana High Court

S.Sai Kumar vs D.Anandam And Anr on 20 January, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.219 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 11.05.2012

(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the

learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -

cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad

(hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.395 of

2010, the claimant has filed the present Appeal to set aside the

impugned order.

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

referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record

are as under:

a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-

against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by

him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 31.12.2009.

The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained

by him in the accident is that on 31.12.2009 at 8.00 PM while

he was proceeding on Honda Activa bearing No. AP 09 AR 7101

MGP,J

from Balanagar towards Borabanda side at Balanagar X Roads,

the driver of Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 0541

(hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') came in rash and

negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the petitioner from

backside. Due to the accident, the petitioner alleged to have

fallen down and sustained grievous injuries.

b) The petitioner was shifted to Susheela Orthopedic

Hospital, Ameerpet for first aid and later was shifted to Gandhi

Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. The petitioner was

discharged on 08.01.2010 and he incurred a sum of

Rs.60,000/- towards his medical expenses and for extra

nourishment.

c) A case in Crime No.2/2010 was registered for the offence

under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of

the crime vehicle and subsequently after completion of

investigation, charge sheet was filed.

d) The petitioner was doing tailoring work at Chikkas Crafts,

Banjara Readymade Cloth Merchants at Yellareddyguda,

Ameerpet and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. But after the

accident, the petitioner is unable to do his tailoring work and

lost his future earnings. Therefore, the petitioner claimed

MGP,J

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the respondent Nos. 1

and 2, who are owner and insurer of the crime vehicle

respectively, for the injuries sustained by him.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1

remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed

counter and the brief averments of which are as under:

a) The petitioner sustained injuries due to bike skid. The

vehicle was of the respondent No.1 was implicated with a view

to get compensation. The Police filed charge sheet without

proper enquiry and investigation.

b) The petitioner colluded with respondent No.1. The

petitioner was not holding a valid and effective driving license as

on the date of accident. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the

petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle (Lorry) bearing No. AP 31 TT 0541 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

iii) To what relief?

MGP,J

6. In order to establish the case, the petitioner examined

himself as PW1 apart from relying on documentary evidence

under Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the

respondents.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the claimant preferred the

present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and award

suitable compensation.

8. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the

claimant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned Standing

Counsel for the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2 and

perused the entire material available on record including the

grounds of Appeal.

9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel

for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in relying on

an endorsement alleged to be made by the appellant before the

doctors, which is against the documents filed by the appellant.

It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in

holding that appellant failed to file scene of offence panchanama

or rough sketch.

MGP,J

10. As can be seen from the impugned order, while answering

the issue No.1, the learned Tribunal by relying on Ex.A3 i.e.,

Medico Legal Certificate came to the conclusion that the

accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of

the lorry bearing No.AP 31 TT 0541. As per Ex.A3, the

appellant/injured alleged to have skid from bike on 31.12.2009

at 11.30 PM at Balkampet. However, it is to be observed that

when an injured encounters with an accident, he would be

under tremendous pressure and shock, due to which he may

not remember the exact reason for sustaining injuries.

Moreover, in few instances, the injured may not be in a position

to know the cause of accident. Even in the present case, as per

Ex.A3 the injured alleged to have skid from bike but what is the

reason for skid of his bike is not elicited. The bike of injured

might have skid due to the collision from the crime vehicle. The

petitioner/injured might have disclosed to the doctors as to how

he sustained injuries i.e., due to skid from the bike. The oral

evidence of injured as PW1 coupled with the other documentary

evidence under Ex.A1 (FIR) and A2 (Charge sheet) discloses that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT 0541. A perusal of Ex.A2 discloses

that the Police, Balanagar conducted scene of offence

MGP,J

panchanama and drew rough sketch. But mere failure to file

panchanama and rough sketch cannot be a ground to come to

the conclusion that the accident did not occur due to the rash

and negligent driving of crime vehicle. It is not mandatory in all

the cases to file scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and

motor vehicle inspector report to establish the negligence on the

part of driver of the crime vehicle.

11. It is well settled principle of law that standards of proof

like in a criminal trial are inapplicable in Motor Accident Claims

cases and standards to be followed in such claims is one based

on preponderance of probability rather than establishing the

case beyond reasonable doubt, as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

itself is a beneficial legislation which has been framed with the

prime objective of providing relief to the family members, who

lost their family member in a vehicular accident. Unfortunately

in the present case the learned Tribunal erred in adjudicating

the matter like a criminal trial, discarding the oral and

documentary evidence on record. Moreover, until and unless

there is prima facie material to establish that the crime vehicle

was involved in the alleged accident, the police would not have

laid charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle. In

MGP,J

Parameshwari vs. Amir Chand and others 1, the Honourable

Supreme Court observed that in road accident claims the strict

principle of proof in a criminal case is not required.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the

considered view that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT

0541.

13. Now coming to the nature of injuries sustained by the

injured/petitioner, as per Ex.A3, the injured alleged to have

sustained lacerated wound of 5 x 4 cm in depth. It is the

evidence of PW1 that initially he was shifted to Susheela

Orthopedic Hospital at Ameerpet for first aid and later he was

shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. He

further deposed that he underwent operation for avulsion injury

to his left leg knee joint on 06.01.2010 and discharged on

08.01.2010 and in this regard he relied upon Ex.A4 (Discharge

summary) and Ex.A4 (OP Card) issued by Gandhi Hospital.

Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards

lacerated wound and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferance

1 (2011) SCC 635

MGP,J

for undergoing treatment to avulsion injury of his left leg knee

joint.

14. Though the petitioner claimed that he has incurred

Rs.60,000/- towards medical and extra nourishment, no

documentary evidence is placed to substantiate the same.

However, as per Ex.A6 i.e., bunch of medical bills the petitioner

incurred Rs.3,174/- towards medical bills. However, as the

petitioner alleged to have undergone surgery, he might incur

medical expenses even after surgery. Hence, the petitioner is

entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses.

15. Since, the petitioner sustained grievous injury, he

requires good nutritious food and vitamin supplements to

recovery quickly from the injuries. Hence, the petitioner is

entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Apart from

that the petitioner might have incurred some amount towards

transportation to visit hospitals, where he underwent treatment.

It is pertinent to note that even after surgery, the petitioner

availed the treatment at Gandhi Hospital as outpatient. Hence,

the petitioner is awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation

expenses. Since the claimant could attend his day to day

activities during the bed ridden period, he might require the

MGP,J

services of an attendant to discharge his personal works.

Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant

charges.

16. The petitioner alleged to have been doing tailoring work

and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. But no documentary

evidence is adduced to that extent. However, considering the

nature of the work being done by the petitioner for his livelihood

and considering the economic conditions during the relevant

period, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the

petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month. Since the petitioner

sustained grievous injury, he needs bed rest at least for a

month and during such period, he may not be able to attend his

duty. Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.4,500/- towards loss

of earnings.

17. Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant No.1 is entitled for

the compensation under various heads, as follows:

      Sl.No.           Name of the head            Compensation
                                                     awarded to
                                                    the claimant
                                                        (Rs.)

  1.           Pain and sufferance                      25,000/-

  2.           Medical expenses                            5,000/-

  3.           Transportation charges                      5,000/-


                                                                                    MGP,J





  4.           Extra nourishment                                          5,000/-

  5.           Loss of earnings                                           4,500/-

  6.           Attendant Charges                                          5,000/-

  7.           Lacerated wound                                            5,000/-

                                                       Total           54,500/-

18. Now coming to the liability, there is no dispute that

respondent No.1 is the owner of the crime vehicle, which was

insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Though the

owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.1 remained

exparte, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed written

statement denying its liability to pay the compensation. Except

contending that the crime vehicle was implicated by owner of

the vehicle and the petitioner by playing fraud, there is no

evidence either oral or documentary to deny its liability to pay

compensation to the petitioner/injured. Hence, the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle

respectively are jointly and severally liable to pay the