Dismissed

J.Venkata Naga Surendra Kumar and Anr. v. S.Rambabu and Anr.

Telangana HC31 Aug 2010CMA/96/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CMA No.96 of 2002 (31-08-2010) wherein the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed an appeal against the impugned award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which rejected the claimant's compensation suit due to discrepancies in medical evidence and lack of corroboration.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed without costs. The impugned award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is upheld.

J.Venkata Naga Surendra Kumar and Anr. Vs S.Rambabu… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

¶4

C.M.A. No.96 of 2002

¶5

Between:

¶6

Jagabathula Venkata Naga Surendra Kumar and another .. Appellants

¶7

AND

¶8

Siddineni Rambabu and another .. Respondents

¶9

JUDGMENT:

¶10

The appeal is directed against the order in O.P. No.258 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 26-10-1998.

¶11

The claim was based on a motor accident said to have happened on 22-03-1990 at about 12.30 A.M. near Srinivasa theatre, Eluru, when ambassador car No.AHJ 1669, driven by the 1^st respondent rashly and negligently at high speed without blowing horn, allegedly dashed against the 1^st claimant causing multiple grievous injuries all over the body and total damage to his cycle. The 1^st claimant was treated in Government hospital, Eluru as

¶12

in-patient for one month and had to undergo a surgery to the right leg. The disability is still left permanently and as he cannot pursue

¶13

his avocation as earlier and as he has lost his further education, the boy, aged about 15 years studying VII class by the time of the accident and the only son of the 2^nd petitioner, lost even his marriage prospects, due to which the son, represented by the father, being then a minor, sought for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

¶14

While the 1^st respondent remained ex parte, the 2^nd respondent, insurer of the vehicle, contended that the 1^st claimant was never involved in the motor accident and even otherwise, car No.AHJ 1669 was not involved in the alleged accident. The insurer referred to the medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters hospital, Eluru, specifying the injuries sustained to have been due to fall and the insurer incidentally denied all the other allegations of the petitioner.

¶15

The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the alleged accident and the entitlement of the minor claimant for compensation and during enquiry examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 and A.2 and Ex.B.1.

¶16

The Tribunal rendered the impugned award referring to the oral and documentary evidence and observing that in Ex.A.2 wound certificate, it was specified that the injured informed that the injuries were caused due to fall from the terrace of a building. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was not preferred due to even the Ex.A.1 first information not corroborating the claims of P.Ws.1 and 2. The Tribunal also noted that Ex.A.1 first information report mentioned the injury to be on the left leg, while the injuries noted by Ex.A.2 wound certificate are totally different and further taking adverse note of non-examination of the doctor also, the Tribunal dismissed the petition without costs.

¶17

The minor 1^st petitioner, who was subsequently declared as

¶18

a major in this appeal, challenged the said award contending that the Tribunal erred in believing that the minor petitioner failed to prove sustaining of injuries in a motor accident and the grievous injuries sustained by the 1^st appellant ought to have been adequately compensated.

¶19

Heard Sri Kakara Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri R.Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the insurer, while none appeared for the 1^st respondent.

¶20

The point for consideration is whether the involvement of the 1^st appellant in a motor accident as alleged has been probablised and whether he is entitled to any compensation from the respondents ?

¶21

Point:

¶22

The earliest information from the medical officer, who admitted the injured claimant into the Government Headquarters hospital, Eluru was about the 1^st petitioner sustaining injuries due to fall from the terrace of a building. The medical officer was acting independently in discharge of his official duties while certifying such a medical certificate and cannot be presumed to have resorted to any falsehood for no reason in attributing the cause of the injuries to a fall from the terrace of a building. Obviously, the said cause was specified in the wound certificate on the information of the injured himself. Though the first information report registered without much delay appears to be containing the statement of the injured about his involvement in a motor accident due to the car in question hitting his cycle rashly and negligently, the injuries found as per Ex.A.2 medical certificate were on the right leg, while the first information report seeks to allege the injury to have been inflicted on the left leg of the petitioner. The medical officer, who issued the certificate, or the

¶23

Head Constable, who allegedly recorded the statement of the injured leading to the first information report or the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the crime, were not examined and it is not known as to whether the 1^st respondent said to be driving the vehicle at the relevant time was prosecuted before any competent criminal Court and if so, what was the result of such a criminal prosecution. Under such circumstances, the interested and selfserving claims of the injured 1^st petitioner as P.W.1 or the alleged eye witness as P.W.2 could not have been preferred by the Tribunal as indicating the happening of any motor accident resulting in the injuries to the minor 1^st petitioner and the Tribunal cannot, therefore, be considered to have gone wrong in refusing to accept the claim. There are absolutely no reasonable grounds to interfere with the impugned award and therefore, the appeal should fail.

¶24

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs.

¶25

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶26

Date: 31-08-2010 Svv

J.Venkata Naga Surendra Kumar and Anr. v. S.Rambabu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.Venkata Naga Surendra Kumar and Anr. v. S.Rambabu and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmajipeta Malla Reddy Vs Dharmajipeta Prathap Reddy

Vasamsetty Venkata Ramachandra Rao, Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Challamcherla Nagaraju Padmavathamma Vs Vasantha Prabhakra Naidu

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Mekala Laxmi

Vaddiparthi Ravikanth Vs B.A.V. Lakshminarayana

Smt. Renuka Yadav Vs Bayyakara Prakash