IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI

FRIDAY ,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 366 OF 2012

Appeal filed under Section ¹⁷³ of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12-07-2011 in M.V.O.P No.619 of ²⁰⁰⁴ on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (Principal District Judge)

Between:

P.Venkat Rami Reddy, S/o Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about ⁵⁵ years, Hindu Employee, R/o Saraswathi Nagar, Nellore.

...Petitioner/Appellant

AND

• 1. M.Mallikharjuna, S/o Kondaiah, D.No.20-913, Kondadibba, Mulapet, Nellore.
• 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manaqer Divisional Office, Brindavan, Nellore. '

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri N. Nageswar Rao

The Court made the following Judgment:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A.No.366 of 2012

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.619 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District Judge, Nellore and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

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-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 21.07.1999.

4. The brief averments of the petition are as follows:

The petitioner was working as Project Manager in M/s.Esteem Constructions, Mandya, Karnataka State and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. On 21.07.1999 at about 8.50 p.m. while the petitioner and

VGKRJ magma 366 of 2012

one K.Sekhar Reddy as a pillion rider from Gudur to Nellore and when village limits, opposite to milk dairy, were proceeding on a scooter they reached near Manubolu a car bearing No.AP 26A 4572, hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle', came from the opposite direction, driven by its driver, in ^a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of the petitioner sustained grievous injuries, hence the petitioner, resulting which the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.5,10,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained exparte. respondent filed counter denying the claim of the The second claimant and contended that the petitioner is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal following issues: framed the

i- Whether the injured-claimant sustained any injuries in the motor accident dated 21.07.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.AP 26A 4572?

any entitled for is claimant the Whether ii. compensation, If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents?

$\overline{3}$

To what relief? iii.

During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf $\overline{7}$ of the petitioner, PW1 to PW3 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of were marked. respondents, however, Ex.B1 was marked.

At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the 8. evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal has given a finding that the petitioner miserably failed to establish the injuries sustained by him in a road accident and dismissed the claim application. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal claiming the compensation amount.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned 9. counsel for respondents.

Now, the points for consideration are: 10.

VGKRJ magma 366 of 2012

1. Whether the Tribunal justified In holding that the claimant failed to prove that he received grievous injuries in the alleged accident dated 21.07.1999, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver offending car? of the

4

• 2. Whether the Order interference? if so, to what extent? of Tribunal needs any
• 11. POINT Nos.1 and 7 -

The claimant, who was examined as PW1 testified that 21.07.1999 at 8.50 p.m. while he was coming from Gudur to Nellore on on a scooter, at that time, the driver of the offending car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his two-wheeler and that he sustained grievous injury and simple injury in the said road accident. The petitioner also relied on Ex.AI attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A2 attested copy of charge sheet. PW2- Dr.C.Rajasekhar Reddy testified that he treated the injured/ claim petitioner and he examined the injured and he sustained injuries in a road accident. PW3-Dr.D.Venkata Subbarao testified that he examined the claimant and issued the disability certificate.

The learned counsel for appellant would submit that the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the main ground of inordinate delay in lodging the complaint by the petitioner and so also the delay of giving report to the police. 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 Human nature and family responsibilities occupied the mind the kith and kin to such an extent that they give more 12. accident. 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 should also evidence with closure scrutiny and in doing so scrutinize the contents of First Information Report.

PW1 testified in his evidence that on 21.07.1999 at 8.50 p.m. while he was coming from Gudur to Nellore on ^a scooter, at that time, the driver of the offending car drove the car in ^a rash and 13.

negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle and that he sustained grievous injuries. In Ex.A1, it was clearly stated by PW1 about the reasons for delay in filing complaint. In Ex.A1, PW1 stated that after receipt of injuries in the Motor Vehicles accident dated 21.07.1999, he became unconscious and he was taken to Dr.P.Krishna Reddy, Nellore and on his advice, he was taken to Jayabharat Hospital, Nellore and he was in Jayabharat Hospital for seven days under treatment of Dr.P.Krishna Reddy and after days he was taken to Vijaya Health Center, Madras and he Vijaya Health Center, Madras for a period of four and half months for treatment and in the fag end of December, 1999, he came to know the details of the accident at Nellore through his relative K.Sekhar Reddy, who was along with him at the time of accident and he informed him about the fact of driver stopping the car at short distance and revealed the name of the driver D.Subrahmanyam and also informed the number of the Petitioner clearly explained the reasons in Ex.AI about the delay of lodging complaint in the police station. The petitioner also proved that after accident he obtained treatment in various hospitals at different places, the same is also supported by PW2 and PW3. The seven was in as car.

First Information Report is marked as Ex.A1 through PW1. Ex.A1 clearly goes to show that the crime was registered against the driver of the offending car. Ex.A2 attested copy of charge sheet shows that after registering the case against the driver of the offending car, the concerned police investigated the case and by fixing the liability on the driver of the offending car, filed the charge sheet against the offending car. The petitioner to discharge his burden relied on Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and his testimony as PW1 and also the evidence of PW2 and PW3. To disprove the evidence produced by the petitioner, no evidence is produced by the respondents. In the case of K.Rajani and others Vs. M.Satyanarayana Goud and another\ it was held that "when the Insurance Company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenged the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be in correct it is for the Insurance Company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false".

14. The claim petition is filed by the claimant of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal under Section 166-A has to determine the amount of fair compensation to be granted in the event an accident has taken place by reason of negligence of a driver of Motor Vehicle. The claimant has to establish his preponderance of probability. case on the touch stone of The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petitioner on account of injuries in a road traffic accident. The evidence of PW1 proves that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury in a road accident. PW2 doctor, who treated the petitioner supported the petitioner about the seeking compensation treatment underwent by the claim petitioner. PW3, who is another doctor, treated the claim petitioner and issued But to rebut the said evidence a disability certificate. no evidence is produced by the respondents. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons it is undoubtedly clear that the claimant sustained injuries in a road accident, which was caused by the driver of the offending car, because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending car only, the claim petitioner sustained injuries and in the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries.

PW1 was justified by exhibiting Ex.A6 that he paid an amount As seen Ex.A3 wound 15. of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. certificate, the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury, therefore, an amount of Rs. 15,000/- is awarded towards one grievous injury and an amount of Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards one simple injury. As stated supra, the petitioner exhibited EX.A6 to prove that he spent an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, therefore an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded The claim to the claim petitioner towards medical expenses, petitioner relied on ¹⁵ Maruthi Ambulance cash bills, which are marked as Ex.A5, but to prove the said Ex.A5 bills, the petitioner failed to examine the driver or owner of the Maruthi Ambulance, therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- only is awarded towards The material on record reveals that the transport expenses, petitioner incurred treatment in Vijaya Hospital. In order to prove the same, the petitioner relied on Ex.A4 bunch of medical bills (49 in number), therefore, an amount of Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses spent by the petitioner in Vijaya hospital. The contention of the petitioner is that he is suffering with a disability of 40%. PW2 testified that the petitioner has permanent disability of 30%

VGKRJ magma 366 of 2012

to his right leg. PW3, who issued a disability certiflcate opined that the petitioner is suffering with 40% temporary disability leg. It is a settled be treated to his right principle that disability to a particular limb cannot a disability to the whole body. On considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3 and as on considering the certificate issued petitioner is arrived at 10%. The claim of the claimant is that he used to earn Rs.5,000/ month by working as private employee in a private organization. No evidence is produced by the petitioner to by PW3, the disability suffered by the per show that he used to earn an amount of Rs.5.000/- per month. The accident ⁱ occurred in the year 1999. - in question was In those days, an ordinary coolie can easily earn an amount of Rs.100/- per day. Accordingly, the monthly Income of the petitioner is arrived at Rs.3,000/- ⁱ Rs.36,000/ i.e. per annum. As per the disability certificate issued by PW3, the age of the petitioner ⁱ applicable to the age group of the amount of Rs.50,400/- (36.000 X 10% IS 45 years. The relevant multiplier petitioner is 14. Therefore, an X 14) is awarded towards compensation for the 10% disability sustained total, the claimant ⁱ by the petitioner. In IS entitled an amount of Rs. 1,01,400/- towards compensation. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle ISⁱ

1

Insurance company and the policy of the offending vehicle is having valid insured with second respondent is also in force and the driver at the time of accident, therefore, the second indemnify the first driving licence respondent Insurance respondent/ owner respondent is having liability to pay Company has to of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the second the compensation as ordered above.

partly allowed and the order dated the file of the Motor 16. In the result, this appeal is 12.07.2011 passed in MVOP No.619/2004 on Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore is amount of aside and the claimant is entitled an with interest @6% p.a. liable to be set Rs.1,01,400/- towards total compensation from the date of petition, till the date of payment, respondent is directed to deposit the compensation The second amount of Rs.1,01,400/- with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal. On such deposit, There shall be no the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same, order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

SD/- K J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

• 1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, The Chairman, Motor Accident Chairms Thouriar-Current Interpar District Guage,<br>Nellore. (with records if any) One CC to Sri S. Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri N.

• SGR

sree Nm

HIGH COURT DATED:11/08/2023

JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.366 of 2012

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

Copies<br>1884<br>19. L. Ly

$\overline{\phantom{a}}$

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVAT

FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

M.A.C.M.A. NO: 366 OF 2012

Between:

P.Venkat Rami Reddy, S/o Chinnappa Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Hindu, Employee, R/o Saraswathi Nagar, Nellore.

...Petitioner/Appellant

AND

• 1. M.Mallikharjuna, S/o Kondaiah, D.No.20-913, Kondadibba, Mulapet, Nellore.
• 2. United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Brindavan, Nellore.

...Respondents

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 12-07-2011 in M.V.O.P No.619 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (Principal District Judge)

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. S Lakshminarayana Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri N. Nageswar Rao, Advocate for the Respondents.

This Court doth order and decree as follows:

• 1. That the appeal be and hereby is allowed in part.
• 2. That the order dated 12.07.2011 passed in MVOP No.619/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore is liable to be set aside.
• 3. That the claimant is entitled an amount of Rs.1,01,400/- towards total compensation with interest @6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of payment.
• 4. That the second respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.1,01,400/- with interest as ordered above, within two months from the date of this judgment, before the Tribunal.

• That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. 5.

• That there shall be no order as to costs in this M.A.C.M.A. 6.

SDI- K ^J RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER

V

//TRUE COPY//

To,

• Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,
• 2. Three CD Copies

SGR sree

HIGH COURT DATED:11/08/2023

DECREE

MACMA.No.366 of 2012

PARTLY ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A. WITHOUT COSTS

4 Copies<br> $\frac{1}{9}$ Copies