HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.No.4284 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

The present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance

Company, aggrieved by the Award dated 19.03.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.1690 of 2011, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX-Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘Tribunal’).

2. The appellant herein is the respondent No.2, respondent No.1 is the petitioner/claimant and respondent No.2 is

respondent No.1, before the Tribunal.

3. Heard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms.P.Radhika, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned Counsel for respondent

No.2.

4. The brief facts of the case, which led to filing of the present appeal, are that respondent No.1 filed claim petition vide M.V.O.P.No.1690 of 2011, seeking compensation of Rs.13,00,000/-, on account of injuries sustained in a road accident that took place on 14.03.2011. On 14.03.2011 at about 4.30 PM, while respondent No.1 was returning back to his residence and when he reached near Bharath gardens, one

motorcycle bearing No.AP 29 BJ 3731 (Crime Vehicle), coming from I.S.Sadan to Champapet, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the respondent No.1. As a result, the respondent No.1 fell on the road and sustained grievous injuries all over the body; that he was shifted to Apollo DRDO Hospital, Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad; that Police of Saidabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No.85 of 2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle.

5. The respondent No.1 filed claim petition vide O.P.No.1690 of 2011, before the Tribunal and averred that he was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month through Real Estate business and Agriculture and he was also an Income Tax Assessee and thus, claimed a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- as compensation.

6. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of respondent No.1/claimant, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12, were marked. On behalf of appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

7. The Tribunal on due consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on record, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.9,17,019/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization and fastened liability on appellant and respondent No.2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by Insurance Company.

8. The learned Counsel for the appellant principally contended that there was delay of six days in lodging the complaint i.e., accident took place on 14.03.2011, whereas, complaint was lodged on 20.03.2011. He further contended that initially case was registered against unknown vehicle and subsequently, crime vehicle was brought into existence only for the purpose of compensation. It is also contended that Tribunal failed to consider the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bhoomireddy Venkata Satya Rama Rao,1 wherein this Court held that if there is appreciable gap of time in lodging complaint from the date of accident it’s evidentiary value is very less. It is further contended that the Tribunal has considered the monthly income of respondent No.1 as Rs.6,000/- per month, without there being any evidence and without considering the fact that respondent No.1 was aged about 65 years and that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant. Therefore, prayed to allow the present appeal.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that respondent No.1/claimant sustained severe injuries

1 2009 (4) TAC 484

in the accident and he was treated for the injuries sustained by him and therefore, there was delay of six days in lodging the complaint and in fact, the Tribunal has discussed this aspect and has rightly come to conclusion that delay had occurred only on account of treatment being taken by respondent No.1, therefore, the