Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. Alleging that when he was proceeding from Wanaparthy to Kurnool in a Maruthi car, driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, due to his rash and negligent driving, dashed the lorry against the car in which he was travelling, resulting in grievous injuries and permanent disability to him, appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- and examined himself as P.W.1 and two other witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Ex.X.1 on his behalf, before the Tribunal. First respondent chose to remain ex parte both before the Tribunal and this Court. Second respondent who filed a counter contesting the claim did not adduce any oral evidence but marked Ex.B.1 by consent on its behalf. The Tribunal after having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent awarded Rs.1,45,000/- as compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, this appeal is preferred by the claimant.

4. P.W.1, the appellant, naturally stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the lorry. P.W.2, a friend of the appellant said to be travelling with the appellant at the time of accident also stated that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent. P.W.2 being a friend of appellant would be an interested witness. Men may lie. Documents and circumstances won't lie. Ex.A.1, F.I.R. issued in connection with the accident, shows that brother of the appellant gave the report to the police about the accident that allegedly took place on 12.07.1997 at 1.00 a.m., on 13/07/1997 at 6.00 p.m. in Manopad Police Station. Ex.A.3, charge sheet filed by the police, against the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent, shows that the accident involving the appellant occurred during the intervening night of 12/13-07-1997 at about 1.00 a.m. i.e. 01.00 a.m. on 13.07.1997. In their evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated that when they were returning in a car during the night of 12/07/1997 they were involved in an accident. Whether the accident took place during the intervening night of 12/13.07.1997 as alleged in Ex.A.3 and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is doubtful, because their evidence shows that after the accident, P.W.1 was shifted to R.R. Hospital, Kurnool, and was kept there for about a day. P.W.2, who, according to Ex.A.3 (charge sheet), received simple injuries, did not state that he went to any hospital, for treatment of the injuries suffered by him, but stated that he and the other friend of him and the appellant, who was sitting in the backside of the car and who did not receive any injuries, shifted the appellant to R.R. Hospital, Kurnool, from the scene of accident. P.W.3, Dr. B.Chandranna, who issued Ex.A.2 injury certificate relating to the appellant, stated that he, who is working as Assistant Professor in Orthopedic Department, Government Medical College, Kurnool, is also working in R.R. Hospital, Kurnool, and treated P.W.1 on 12.07.1997, when he was admitted in the R.R. Hospital, Kurnool. Since the evidence of P.W.3 is that he treated the appellant on 12.07.1997, since the accident took place at 1.00 a.m. and since it would take a few hours time for shifting the appellant from the scene of accident to R.R. Hospital, Kurnool, the accident in fact must have occurred during the intervening night of 11/12.07.1997. If really the accident took place during the intervening night of 12/13.07.1997, the date of admission in Ex.A.2 would have been noted by P.W.3, a Government Doctor, as 13.07.1997, but not 12.07.1997. Since the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.2 clearly show that the appellant was admitted in the hospital on 12.07.1997 and was discharged on 13.07.1997, the accident could not have taken place at 1.00 a.m. during intervening night of 12/13.07.1997, but should have occurred on the intervening night of 11/12.07.1997. P.W.3, an Assistant Professor in Government Hospital, when he knew that appellant, being treated by him, was the victim of a medico legal case, would not have failed to enquire if information regarding the accident was given to the police or not, and if not he would and ought to have informed the police about the appellant receiving injuries in a road accident. Another significant and glaring omission on the part of P.W.3 is his failure to mention the time of examination of the appellant on 12.07.1997.

5. If really P.W.1 was admitted in R.R. Hospital at Kurnool as an in-patient on 12.07.1997 and was treated there by P.W.3, P.W.3 would have noted the injuries found on the body of the appellant at the time of his admission and his condition and also would have opened a case sheet containing the time and date on which he was brought to R.R. hospital. Failure of the appellant to summon the case sheet and other relevant material relating to his admission in and discharge from R.R. Hospital, Kurnool, i.e. the same town in which the Tribunal is functioning, when he took steps for production of the case sheet from Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, was not either kept in view, or taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also did not focus its attention as to the date on which the accident actually took place, and when the report regarding the accident was given and the cause for the delay.

"Patient has allegedly sustained injuries to right lower limb on 11/7/97 at Kurnool in an RTA following which he has he has severe pain right hip and thigh with inability to bear weight on the affected limb. No history of loss of conscious/ seizures/ ENT bleeding. He was initially admitted at a Private Nursing Home at Kurnool and shifted here for further management."

The entry dated 13.07.1997 of Ex.X.1 reads:

"H/o RTA 2 days back. Pt. Travelling in a car had a head on collision e a lorry."