( 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 traveling, 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.

( 2 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is since the voluminous documentary evidence adduced by the appellant shows that he had to spend a heavy amount for his treatment and in view of the fact that petitioner has to undergo another operation, as stated by P. W. 3, compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too meager that too because appellant suffered a permanent disability and is unable to live his normal life as he used to prior to the accident, and so he is entitled to the entire compensation claimed.

( 3 ) THOUGH first respondent, against whose driver an allegation of rash and negligent driving is made, chose to remain ex parte and the second respondent did not think it fit to obtain permission from the Tribunal to contest the claim on all the pleas open to the first respondent, after considering the evidence on record, I am of the considered opinion that the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 relating to negligence of the driver of the lorry of the respondent, is not proper, and so by virtue of the power vested in the appellant Court by Rule 33 of Order XLI C. P. C. , I wish to reconsider the said issue, because this Court cannot shut its eyes to the fraud played on the Tribunal and allow an apparently erroneous and unsustainable finding to become final, and thereby enable the appellant to enrich himself, probably in collusion with the first respondent, at the expense of a nationalized insurance company.

( 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 traveling 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 wont 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 kep

Click Here to Read the rest of this document