THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Dismissal order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Warangal, in M.V.O.P.No.340 of 2003, dated 02.06.2008, the claim petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to set- aside the order of the learned Tribunal by awarding compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2002 at about 6.30 p.m., when the petitioner, as a pillion rider and one Punnam Sudheer, as a rider were returning on Scooter bearing registration No.AP-36B-9647 and when they reached near Madikonda Cross Road, Warangal District, an Auto bearing Registration No.AP-09-W- 5062 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the Scooter of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner along with rider-Sudheer sustained grievous and simple injuries all over the body and immediately after the accident, they were shifted to Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda for treatment.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Madikonda Police Station registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2022, conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-09-W-5062.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that he sustained fracture injury to his right leg and multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the said injuries, the petitioner is suffering from pains, shock and mental agony and lost his studies and spent heavy expenditure for his treatment. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents who are owner and insurer of crime Auto bearing No.AP-09W-5062.

6. The claim against Respondent No.1 was dismissed by the Tribunal due to insufficient address and respondent No.2 remained ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, narration of accident, rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of Auto, injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical expenses incurred by him and further contended that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

i. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle?

ii. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries, disability and is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

iii. To what relief?

9. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, got examined the Doctor who treated him as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 on his behalf. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

10. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that there is no nexus between the accident and the offending vehicle and the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the offending Auto as he failed to lodge any report before the Police and therefore dismissed the claim petition due to lack of bonafides. Aggrieved with the said finding, the petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal.

11. Heard arguments submitted by Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant who appeared through virtual mode and Sri V.Venkat Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the record including grounds of Appeal.

12. The main contention of the learned Counsel for appellant/injured is that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the sole ground that there is delay in lodging complaint before the Police. Learned counsel also contended that the Tribunal ought to hav