The court emphasized that in motor accident claims, evidence must be assessed on a preponderance of probabilities, with the burden of proof on the claimant.

JUDGMENT:

This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 23.08.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.268 of 2017 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Nalgonda (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the M.V.O.P. was dismissed with costs in a claim petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed by the appellant on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.M. near Vemulurivaagu at the outskirts of Chennaipalem Village, Mattampally Mandal, Suryapet District. When the appellant was going on motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-AS-7501, respondent No.1, who is the driver cum owner of a tractor has driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his motorcycle. Thereby, the appellant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained closed fracture M/3 L/3 right femur, head injury and multiple injuries all over his body. The appellant was first treated at Government Area Hospital, Huzurnagar and then treated at Mamatha General Super Specialty Hospital, Khammam for better treatment. On account of the loss sustained due to the injuries in the accident, the claim petition under appeal has been filed.

4. The appellant got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. Respondent No.2 got examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition leading to filing of the present appeal.

5. In grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence in correct perspective, that Ex.P6 discharge summary is issued by New Life Hospital where the appellant got treated from 03.05.2015 to 05.05.2015 wherein it is mentioned that the appellant met with RTA at his village. Further, the medical record shows that the appellant sustained two grievous and two simple injuries and was treated as inpatient from 03.05.2015 to 28.05.2015, 29.03.2016 to 04.04.2016, 17.05.2016 to 27.05.2016, 25.04.2017 to 28.04.2017 and 17.04.2018 to 28.04.2018. Further, the appellant underwent surgeries on 31.03.2016 and 17.04.2018 for removal of implants. The appellant underwent another surgery for cranioplasty surgery on 20.05.2016 and physiotherapy during the period from 25.04.2017 to 28.04.2017. This entire process warrants compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of ‘pain and suffering’. There is loss of earnings for about 4 to 6 months period taken for healing of fracture wherein considerable amounts are spent for transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment estimated at Rs.75,000/-. Lastly, it is pleaded that there is an error in holding that the appellant cannot have sustained injuries in an accident in RTA on 03.05.2015 near Vemulurivaagu and that Ex.P7-wound certificate issued by Mamatha General and Super Specialty Hospitals, Khammam, is not taken into consideration which mentions about the appellant sustained two grievous injuries and two simple injuries in a road traffic accident.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the medical record and oral evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 would prove that the appellant sustained injuries in the road traffic accident which occurred on 03.05.2015 at 7:30 A.M. whereas the Tribunal has erroneously concluded that the accident occurred at 11:00 P.M. on 02.05.2015 and in that regard held that the accident is not proven and thereby dismissed the claim petition. Further, it is argued that as per