Delay in lodging FIR does not invalidate a claim for compensation in motor vehicle accidents; proper assessment of permanent disability's impact on earning capacity is essential for calculating compensation.

JUDGMENT :

(Nyapathy Vijay, J.)

The present M.A.C.M.A is filed questioning the Judgment and Decree dated 25.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.494 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The Insurance Company is the Appellant herein.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

On the intervening night of 21/22.06 .2015, the Claimant along with his friend by name M.V. Raghava Satish went to Chennamma Circle, Kallur Estate of Kurnool Town on his motor cycle. While the Claimant was waiting by the side of his motorcycle on the road side margin, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 02 X 8995 owned by the Respondent No.1 and driven by the Respondent No.3 came from Gooty Town side in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Claimant and also the motorcycle. As the Claimant suffered serious injuries, he was immediately taken to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for medical treatment. On the medical advice, the Claimant was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences (hereinafter called as “KIMS”) at Secunderabad, where he took medical treatment and was discharged on 30.06.2015. The M.V.O.P was filed under Section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.80,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. As per the particulars furnished in the claim petition, no injuries were mentioned as fracture of right hand wrist, right leg, the segmental fracture of bones of right leg, lacerated wound over right elbow and grievous and bleeding injuries on the entire body. In the claim petition, it was mentioned that due to the accident, the Claimant is unable to sit or stand without the help of walking stick.

4. The Insurance Company filed its counter contending that the offending lorry was not involved in the accident at all and the Claimant had colluded with the Police and had foisted a criminal case against the driver of the lorry for the purpose of claiming compensation. It was also pleaded that the accident occurred on 22.06.2015, but the criminal complaint was lodged on 13.07.2015 and there was a delay of 23 days in lodging the complaint. It is further pleaded that the accident had occurred on 22.06.2015, but the Petitioner filed the claim petition in the month of October, 2016 and there was no reason, which is forthcoming for the delay in lodging the criminal case, the delay in filing the claim petition and the other aspects of the claim there also.

5. The Respondent Nos.1 & 3 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively remained ex parte and did not contest the case. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-

1) Whether the accident occurred on 22.06.2015 at 12.10 a.m. midnight near Chennamma Circle, Kallur Estate of Kurnool Town due to rash and negligent driving of R3 being driver of lorry bearing No.AP 02 X 8995 wherein petitioner sustained injuries?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

6. In the course of trial, the Claimant examined P.Ws 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.24 to support his claim. Ex.X.1 and Ex.C.1 were also marked in support of the claim. On behalf of the Insurance Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked.

7. The Tribunal considering that the right leg of the Claimant was amputated and he had underwent two surgeries in KIMS Hospital, Hyderabad (as per the evidence of P.W.3) granted compensation of Rs.60,00,000/- due to loss of earnings on account of partial/permanent functional disability and in total awarded compensation of Rs.72,85,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, the present M.A.C.M.A is filed.

8. Heard Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the Appellant and Sri K.V. Raghuveer, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1.

9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the manner in which the delay in registering the F.I.R. after lapse of 23 days from the date of acc