Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Appeal Is Filed By The vs Y on 9 March, 2022
HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.1998 of 2011
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "M.V. Act") aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 13.07.2011, passed in M.V.O.P.No.454 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Markapur (for short "the tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act before the tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereon 9% p.a. as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16.03.2008 while the petitioner proceeding on a motor cycle along with his friend T. Yogesh as pillion rider to go to Kunchepalli, when the motor cycle reached near Sivaji Nagar at about 6.00 P.M., an auto bearing No.AP 7Y 2405, the 1st respondent came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side of the road and dashed to the motor cycle. As a result of which, the petitioner's right leg fractured, compound fracture of the right patella and also right knee ankle besides some other injuries. Immediately, the petitioner shifted to Government Hospital, Darsi by 108 Ambulance and from there to a private hospital of Dr. S. Prasad, Ongole for better treatment. 2 Dr. Jaya Sekhar, who treated the petitioner, conducted operation to his right leg inserting steel rods and that the petitioner has spent Rs.20,000/- towards his treatment. On a requisition given by the doctor, I Town Police Station, Ongole came and recorded the statement of the petitoern and transmitted the same to Darsi Police Station on the point of jurisdiction. The police registered a case and field charge sheet and it was taken on file as C.C.No.17 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi. On 28.3.2008 the 1st respondent was also arrested. The petitioner has purchased the medicines at a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner was treated as Inpatient for 10 days and due to the said accident he sustained permanent disability. Hence, the petitioner filed the said O.P
4. The 1st and 2nd respondents remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and specifically denied the involvement of crime vehicle auto bearing No.AP 7Y 2405 in the accident in which the petitioner allegedly sustained injuries. Further, it is contended that the driver of the auto has no valid driving licence, terms and conditions of policy are violated. It is further stated that the 1st and 2nd respondents and the police have violated sections 134-C of M.V.Act, 1988 which are mandatory and the claim of the petitioner is excessive. The petitioner is not entitled for any amount as compensation and the amount spent for medication is exaggerated. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
3
i) Whether the petitioner has received injuries in the motor vehicle accident i.e., hit by the auto bearing No.AP 7Y 2405 by the driver?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
6. To ssubstantiate his claim, the petitioner/claimant examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.
7. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.38,155/- against the 1st and 2nd respondents with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, while dismissing the petition against 3rd respondent.
8. Heard Sri S. Narendranath Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; Sri T. Mahender Rao and Mr. Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsels appearing for the respondents.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal is on lower side inspite of evidence of PW.2 - Medical Officer and the expenditure spent by the appellant/petitioner for his operation on his right leg and inserting steel rods. Learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal has not carried away the allegations of the Insurance Company as they are in 4 the variant of denying everything and may be directed to pay compensation if the vehicle was insured. He further submitted that the tribunal has gravely erred in holding that there is delay in giving FIR after the accident and the appellant/petitioner was taken to Darsi Government Hospital by 108 Ambulance and for better treatment and to conduct operation he was taken to Dr S.P. Prasad's Hospital in Ongole and there an operation was conducted on his right leg and inserting steel rods on a requisition given by the Doctor, I Town Police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the appellant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant belongs to Ongole whereas the owner of the vehicle belongs to Guntur. He also stated that the injury fracture sustained by the appellant on his right patella in grievous and it may cause discomfort to him for several years and other injuries. Hence, prayed to enhance the compensation awarded by the tribunal.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondents disputed the involvement of the crime vehicle in the accident and contended that there is four days delay in lodging Ex.A1-F.I.R which does not disclose the involvement of crime vehicle. As per the evidence spoken by PW.1 firstly he was taken to Government Hospital, Darsi from the accident spot in 108 Ambulance service and then shifted to the private hospital of PW.2 for better treatment and no report is given on 16.3.2008 either by the appellant or his friend who drove the motor cycle. 5
Admittedly, the driver of the motor cycle who is friend of the appellant also received minor injuries and as per the evidence spoken by PW.1 he took treatment in Government Hospital, Darsi itself. But no explanation is forthcoming for not giving report on 16.3.2008 itself.
12. As per Ex.A1-F.I.R., it is a hit and run case. Either Ex.A4 remand report dated 28.3.2008 or Ex.A11- charge sheet do not disclose the basis for identification of crime vehicle and its driver forcing him to surrender on 28.3.2008. Ex.A4 and Ex.A11 remand report and charge sheet which are the basis for petitioner to prove the involvement of crime vehicle throw doubt on genuineness of petitioner's claim as contended by the 3rd respondent. It seems that crime vehicle auto is planted in this case managing the police in connivance with the respondents 1 and 2 driver and owner of crime vehicle with an ulterior motive obviously to get wrongful gain misusing the provisions of M.V.Act.
13. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied on a decision of this Court reported in T. Pattabhi Rama Rao Vs. Y. Yadava Rao and others1, for a proposition that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claims under hit and run cases and the remedy lies under section 163 of M.V. Act and when a claim petitions are filed planting vehicles in connivance with the police and owners of the vehicles with a view to claim compensation from insurance company discilplinary proceedings are to be initiated against persons responsible for 1 2010 (6) ALT 643 6 such illegal acts. The above decision is aptly applicable to the facts of the case.
14. In view of the above findings, the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation following the amounts under the below heads :
Sl. Name of Head Awarded by
No. Tribunal
Rs. Ps.
1. Grievous injury Rs. 10,000-00
Simple injury Rs. 3,500-00
2. Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000-00
3. Medical expenses Rs. 23,155-00
4. Transportation Rs. 5,000-00
TOTAL Rs.56,655-00
15. With regard to future prospects, as the
petitioner/claimant is a student, having 18 years, there is no evidence produced or any substantial evidence showing completion of his study and going to join in a particular profession. Hence, the tribunal has not considered the future prospects. In similar view, this Court has also taken the view that the petitioner/claimant has miserably failed to show his future income, and for that reason, this Court is not considered this aspect.
16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed partly and the compensation awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs.38,155/- to Rs.56,655/-. with proportionate costs and 7 interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Appeal shall stand closed.
___________________________ Dr. K. MANMADHA RAO, J Date : 09 -03-2022 Gvl 8 HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.1998 of 2011 Date : 09 .03.2022 Gvl