Telangana High Court
Yarram Krishna Mohan Rao, Krishna Dist vs Ramidi Nirmala, Khammam Anr on 16 June, 2022
Author: G. Sri Devi
Bench: G. Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1955 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 10.07.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1144 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, the Tribunal).
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 28.07.2008, the claimant was driving his own tractor bearing No.AP 16 AN 5857/5854 from Narayanapuram towards Anigellapadu and when he reached Old Age Home, Bonakal Village, one Tata Indica Car bearing No.AP 20 H 7729 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the tractor, due to which the tyre was removed from the tractor and trailer turned 2 GSD, J Macma_1955_2015 turtle. As a result of which the claimant fell down and sustained fracture injuries over his right ear. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Indicar Car, the claimant laid the claim against the respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the aforesaid Car, respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2 filed separate counters denying the averments of the claim petition including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues are framed before the Tribunal:-
1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent drive by driver of Car No.AP 20 H 7729?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the 3 GSD, J Macma_1955_2015 respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-policy was marked.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the claim-petition stating that the claimant has not received any injuries in the accident. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimant filed the present appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal had extensively dealt with the oral and documentary evidence available on record and accordingly dismissed the claim-petition. The findings of the Tribunal in paragraph Nos.16 to 19 of the impugned order are necessary to be reproduced herein for better appreciation of the matter.
"16. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of charge sheet. In Ex.A2 charge sheet also police did not mention any where that P.W.1 received injuries. P.W.3, who is a witness to the accident, stated that the petitioner sustained head fracture and bleeding injuries to both ears and other grievous injuries on hands. P.W.3 further stated that 4 GSD, J Macma_1955_2015 G.Sathyanarayana received leg fracture. The petitioner in the evidence, did not state that he received fracture injuries. So, the statement of P.W.3 that the petitioner received fracture injuries is not correct. P.W.1 in the evidence stated that police refused to take him to Government Hospital, Madhira. If really, P.w.1 received injuries in the accident, definitely the police would have referred him to Government Hospital, Madhira for treatment. The police referred G.Sathyanarayana who is the injured in the same accident and who filed M.V.O.P.No.835 of 2005. So, the statement of P.W.1 that police refused to send him to Government Hospital, Madhira, is not correct.
17. Ex.A3 is the wound certificate, dt. 07.03.2013. The date of accident in this case is 28.07.2008. Ex.A4 is Out Patient Card and prescriptions issued by New Life Hospital, Khammam, dt. 04.11.2013. So, Exs.A3 and A4 are not relevant medical record with regard to alleged injuries of P.W.1. The petitioner filed Ex.A5 discharge summary. Ex.A6 is the discharge summary issued by P.Rama Krishna of New Life Hospital, Khammam. So, the medical bills annexed to Ex.A5 are dt. 06.03.2012. So, Ex.A6 pertained to the year 2012. So, all the documents, i.e., Exs.A3, A4 and A6 are not immediately after the accident. So, the documents Exs.A3, A4 and A5 are procured by the petitioner for the purpose of compensation.
18. The petitioner filed Ex.A5, which is discharge summary. The petitioner produced evidence of P.W.2 with 5 GSD, J Macma_1955_2015 regard to treatment. Ex.A5 also appears to be a brand new discharge summary. If really, P.W.1 underwent treatment in the year 2008, Ex.A5 must appear like old document. The evidence of P.W.2 that petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 28.07.2008 at 1.00 PM is doubtful. Because, the petitioner has not stated anything in ex.A1 first information report with regard to injuries allegedly received by him. So, the police investigation under Ex.A2 did not disclose about injuries to P.W.1. The first information report, which is given by P.W.1 did not disclose about his receiving injuries. As per Ex.A1 first information report, P.W.1 gave report to police immediately after the accident at 2.30 PM (1430 hours).
19. The evidence of P.W.2 shows that P.W.1 was admitted in his Hospital as inpatient on 28.07.2008 at 1.00 PM. According to Ex.A5 discharge summary, P.W.1 was admitted in the Hospital of P.W.2 on28.07.2008 and discharged on 05.08.2008. If really P.W.1 was in the hospital of P.W.2 i.e., New Life Hospital, Khammam from 28.07.2008 at 1.00 PM onwards till 05.08.2008, there is no possibility for P.W.1 to give Ex.A1 report to police. So, the discharge summary under Ex.A5 and evidence of P.W.2 with regard to treatment of P.W.1 in his hospital creates any amount of suspicion. More so, P.W.1 did not state in Ex.A1 first information report with regard to injuries caused to him. P.W.1 stated about only injuries sustained by G.Sathyanarayana, who is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.835 of 2012. So, the claim of petitioner that he received 6 GSD, J Macma_1955_2015 injuries in the accident on 28.07.2008 is not correct. So, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. The petitioner has not received any injuries in the accident. So, accordingly issue No.1 is answered against the petitioner."
10. From the above, it is clear that while dismissing the claim-petition, the learned Tribunal gave cogent reasons, based on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence brought on record. Absolutely, no ground is made out by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 16.06.2022 gkv