Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Anantabhotla Venkata Chalapathi vs Smt.Boggisam Bhagya Laxmi Anr on 30 July, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.229 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:
The appellant before this Court is the claimant in O.P.No.613 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore (Principal District Judge), whose application filed for compensation as against the respondents has been disallowed.
His case as narrated in his claim statement is briefly stated as under:
The petitioner/appellant's contention is that on 29.06.2003 at about 9.45 p.m, he along with his wife, son and sister-in- law boarded a bus bearing registration No.P.Y.01/U-2650, which belonged to the 1st respondent herein to go to Nellore from Hyderabad; when the said bus reached Kopperapadu village, 10 kilometers away from Addanki at about 3.30 a.m or 4.00 a.m, it was hit to a road side tree due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver and it resulted severe injury on the back of neck of the petitioner; some of the passengers of the bus also received injuries in the said accident. Immediately after the accident on the information passed on to Samudrala Anjaneyulu, one of the relative of the claimant a car was sent to the place of accident and the claimant was shifted to Dr. G. Madhu Kiran Reddy, M.S (Ortho) at Ongole in the early hours of 30.06.2003. After he was provided with first aid in the hospital of Dr. G. Madhu Kiran Reddy, he was shifted to Kamineni hospitals, L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad in an 2 Ambulance bearing registration No.A.P.27/U-8199 and was admitted there on the same day at 9.00 p.m. Kamineni Hospital authority also passed on information about the accident to Addanki police station through phonogram on the next day of his admission at 7.00 a.m and that he was treated in the said hospital as inpatient for the neck injury due to which his legs and hands were paralyzed. He was treated conservatively with cervical traction and was put in water bed. With a great difficulty and due to the costly medical care, he could be able to sit with the cervical collar and he was discharged from the hospital on 30.07.2003. Even after the discharge from the hospital, claimant was forced to confine to bed and was compelled to revisit Kamineni hospital by undertaking long journey from Nellore by engaging ambulance on rental basis. Huge amounts were spent to undergo physiotherapy. He was compelled to take prolonged treatment and physiotherapy at least for a period of two years due to which entire earned leave accumulated to his credit was exhausted, and lost the opportunity of encashing the earned leave of eight months period and was compelled to apply for leave on loss of pay. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the bus on a complaint given by one of the injured passengers by name Badrunissa and charge sheet was laid against him in the Court of Munsif Magistrate, Addanki in C.C.No.207 of 2003 under Section 338 I.P.C.
The owner of the bus did not chose to contest the case and he remained ex parte. The case was contested by the insurer of the bus and as the case was not contested by the owner of the bus, 3 permission to take all the defenses available to him was obtained by making an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the 2nd respondent insurer of the bus.
One of the prime contention raised by the insurer of the bus/2nd respondent herein was that there was no documentary proof produced by the claimant in proof of his involvement in the accident and that his name was not shown as a witness or injured in the list of the witnesses appended to the charge sheet and this would create suspicion as to his involvement in the accident and sustaining of injuries in the motor accident as alleged by him in his claim statement. As per the 2nd respondent, the claimant might have been suffering from neck problem due to old age; taking advantage of the accident to the bus, he filed the present claim petition to get compensation from this respondent wrongfully.
During the course of enquiry, appellant/claimant had examined himself as P.W.1 and one Subrahmanya Kumar as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.31. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the 2nd respondent.
The Court below, on appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 particularly the statement made by the claimant during the course of his examination which was not supported by any documentary evidence entertained a doubt as to his involvement in the accident. As the name of the claimant was not shown in the charge sheet, it appeared that a private complaint was filed by him. After due enquiry, additional charge sheet Ex.A.7 was filed. This fact was made clear from Ex.A.7, additional charge sheet 4 where the name of the claimant shown was included as L.W.5. As per the recitals of Ex.A.7, the defacto-complainant L.W.1 Badrunissa was shifted to the Government hospital, Addanki and there she was admitted for treatment and the present complainant (the appellant herein) was taken to Kiran Neuro Super Specialty hospital run by Dr.G. Madhu Kiran Reddy; subsequently he was taken to Kamineni hospitals on a referral letter given by the said Madhu Kiran Reddy. In the said referral letter, which the claimant relied on and marked as Ex.A.4, it was only stated "I am herewith referring a case of traumatic quadriplegia for further treatment".
The other document which the petitioner relied was Ex.A.5 certified copy of outpatient issued by Kamineni Hospitals. There also the complaint of the petitioner was described as 'quadriplegia' advised by Dr. Jaleel, M.S to admit in Orthopedics Department. The claimant had not examined any other witnesses in proof of his contention that he received injury in a road accident. Except his solitary testimony and Ex.A.7, no other evidence was adduced to prove his contention that immediately after the accident, he was taken to a hospital at Madhu Kiran Reddy. He did not examine Dr. Madhu Kiran Reddy by whom he was referred to Kamineni hospital for treatment. In the referral letter Ex.A.4, there was no whisper that he received injuries in a road accident and it was only stated that he was referring a case of 'traumatic quadriplegia' for further treatment.
In Ex.A.7 additional charge sheet copy, there was no specific satisfactory explanation insofar as non disclosure of the name of 5 the claimant as injured in the original charge sheet, and it was only stated that original wound certificate was filed by the complainant's counsel along with C.F.R.2177/2004. Pertinent to note that the additional charge sheet was filed by adding the Sections 337 IPC before that charge sheet was filed under Section 338 I.P.C. The original wound certificate, the reference of which was made in the additional charge sheet was not filed by the claimant except filing Ex.A.7 discharge summery card in which also only the seal of Addanki Court appeared.
If the contention of the claimant was that he received injuries in a road accident and was taken to the hospital of Dr. Madhu Kiran Reddy where according to him was provided with the first aid, was it not his duty to examine Dr. Madhu Kiran Reddy to whose hospital, he was taken initially. If really the contention of the claimant was that he was taken to hospital of Dr. Madhu Kiran Reddy immediately after the accident for the purpose of treatment for the injuries received in the accident, the doctor who issued Ex.A.4 would have stated the nature of injuries received and the manner in which he received any such injuries. But in Ex.A.4, it was only stated that "I am herewith referring a case of traumatic quadriplegia for further treatment". No satisfactory explanation afforded by the claimant as to why his name did not appear in the charge sheet, even after the information was passed on to the police of Addanki by Kamineni hospital authorities on 1.7.2003 itself. P.W.2 Dr. Subramanya Kumar was not even showed the bunch of cash receipts Ex.P.17 and other bills relating to Kamineni Hospital. 6 P.W.2 did not even state what was the real expenditure incurred by the petitioner towards his treatment.
The trial Court had rightly entertained a doubt as to the involvement of the claimant in a road accident and receiving of injuries by him in a road accident as alleged by him as he failed to adduce reliable evidence insofar as receiving of injuries in a road accident. Except oral testimony of the claimant, no other evidence was adduced to prove that the accident took place in the manner described by him. Looking to the contents of Ex.A.4 and the testimony of P.W.1 which was unsupported by the documentary evidence and that the other material available in the record, the Court below suspected the case of the claimant and found substantial force in the contention of the 2nd respondent that to have wrongful gain from it taking advantage of the accident to the bus, a false and fictitious claim was laid as against it.
This Court has not noticed factual or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Court below dismissing the claim of the petitioner. The order under challenge is liable to be confirmed.
Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant against the order dated 01.02.2011, passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore (Principal District Judge) in O.P.No.613 of 2005, is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J Date.30.07.2019 Gk 7 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI M.A.C.M.A.No.229 OF 2013 Date:30.07.2019 Gk