Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(AP) 5349
APHC010883752016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3364]
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A V RAVINDRA BABU
MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:
1219/2016
Between:
1. Busetty Srinivasulu, S/o Ramaiah, aged about 40 years,
Weaver, R/o Rangapuram Village, Appanapalli Post, Khajipet
Mandal, Kadapa District.
...APPELLANT/PETITIONER
AND
1. P. Srinivasulu, S/o Ramaiah, Ownerof Hero Honda Passion Plus
bearing
No.A.P.04-J-1927,
R/o
Rangapuram
Village,
Appanapalli Post, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District.
2. United India Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional
Manager, Dhobighat Road, Kadapa Town & District.
...RESPONDENTS
The Court made the following:
Credible evidence and prompt disclosure of accidents are crucial in establishing claims for compensation in motor accident cases.
Headnote:
MACMA - Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - The court dismissed the claim for compensation due to the petitioner's failure to explain the delay in lodging the report and lack of convincing evidence to prove the accident was due to rash and negligent driving. The court found no grounds to interfere with the tribunal's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim, citing the petitioner's failure to explain the delay in lodging the report and lack of convincing evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's case was suspicious and lacked credibility, as the evidence did not convincingly prove the accident was due to rash and negligent driving. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the claim was justified.
Issues: The issues for trial included determining the cause of the claimant's injuries, the validity of the driver's license, the entitlement to compensation, and the relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence and the need to establish the cause of the injuries. It highlighted the petitioner's failure to disclose the accident immediately and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the delay in lodging the report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the MACMA without costs, affirming the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the claim for compensation.
JUDGEMENT
Challenge in this MACMA is to the award, dated 14.03.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.745 of 2007, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa (“Tribunal” for short), whereunder the Tribunal dealing with a claim made by the petitioner towards compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with regard to the injuries received by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 19.08.2005, dismissed the same.
2) The parties to this MACMA will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3) The case of the petitioner, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim before the Tribunal, is that on 19.08.2005 in the early morning, the petitioner along with Dande Narasimhulu left the village to go to Kadapa. At about 4-00 a.m., when they were proceeding near Bala Pullaiah Swamy Temple, Appanapalli Village, on left side of the road, the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.A.P.04-J-1927 (hereinafter will be referred to as “offending vehicle”), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner with high speed. He came in wrong side and dashed the petitioner. On account of the same, the petitioner sustained fracture of left thigh and some other injuries. The rider of the offending vehicle shifted the petitioner to a private hospital in Kadapa and Dande Narasimhulu helped him and accordingly the petitioner was admitted in the clinic. Afterwards, he was shifted to Pragathi Orthopaedic and General Hospital, Kadapa and admitted in the hospital on 30.08.2005. Later the petitioner preferred a report to the police about the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the offending vehicle. Since the accident took place, the rider of the offending vehicle got admitted him in a private hospital, Dr.Sanjeevaiah, Ortho, Kadapa. Later, the petitioner was taken to Pragathi Orthopaedic and General Hospital, Kadapa. Dr.Sanjeevaiah treated the petitioner and conducted a surgery to him and inserted a rod. The surgery failed and he was shifted to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad on 13.04.2006. On 28.04.2006 a surgery was conducted to the petitioner and another rod was substituted in the place of old rod. He was discharged on 06.05.2006. The petitioner visited the hospital for four times. He spent Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant. He spent Rs.15,000/- towards transport to hospitals. The accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent act of first respondent and the offending vehicle was insured with the second respondent. Hence, they are liable to pay compensation.
4) The first respondent remained exparte.
5) The second respondent got filed a written statement denying the case of the petitioner and the substance of the contention is that according to the report, accident took place on 19.08.2005, but the report was filed in Khajipet Police Station on 04.12.2005. According to the wound certificate, the petitioner was brought to the hospital on 30.08.2005. The report was lodged belatedly. The petitioner did not reveal anything before the Doctors who treated him about the fact that he received injuries in the road accident. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
6) On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trail:
(1) Whether the claimant received injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of rider of the motorcycle of 1st respondent? (2) Whether R.1’s driver was having valid licence at the time of the accident? (3) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from whom? (4) To what relief?
7) During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents.
8) The Tribunal on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the petitioner failed to explain the delay in lodging repor
