Dismissed

Kadimidi Ramana v. Kotana Appalanaidu

Telangana HC1 Feb 2012CMA/2256/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appellant challenged an Award dismissing his compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal rejected the claim as fake due to a 38-day delay in filing a private complaint and insufficient evidence proving the appellant sustained injuries. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding, noting the appellant failed to explain why there was no police intimation when t

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed against the Tribunal's Award dismissing the claim petition for compensation was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Kadimidi Ramana Vs Kotana Appalanaidu — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶2

CMA NO. 2256 OF 2002

¶3

DATED: 01.02.2012

¶4

Between: Kadiidi Ramana .. Appellant And Kotana Appalanaidu and others .. Respondents

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶6

CMA NO. 2256 OF 2002

¶7

JUDGMENT:

¶8

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the Award dated 14.07.2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge at Vizianagaram in M.V.O.P.No.16 of 2000.

¶9

2. I have heard Sri Jayanti S.C.Sekhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Sriman, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3/insurance company.

¶10

3. The appellant/injured claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident allegedly occurred on 08.09.1998 at about 04.30 PM. The learned Tribunal after making an enquiry into it, recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove that he received injuries in the motor vehicle accident allegedly occurred on 08.09.1998 and also holding specifically that the claim preferred by the appellant is not a genuine one. Recording the said findings, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. As it would appear from the award passed by the Tribunal below it was of the view that the evidence let in by the petitioner in proof of the

¶11

accident as well as in proof of the factum of his receiving injuries is not true and therefore, his claim is liable to be dismissed.

¶12

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that merely because there is 38 days delay in filing the private complaint before the Court in respect of the accident and for not lodging a report with the police soon after the accident, the genuineness of the claim cannot be doubted, and the appellant cannot be deprived of the compensation for which he is legitimately entitled on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident.

¶13

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent–insurance company would contend that the learned tribunal after carefully examining the facts and evidence on record, rightly held that the claim is a fake one and the award passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the claim petition needs no interference in this appeal.

¶14

5. According to the appellant, on 08.09.1998at about 04.30 PM while he was tying the rope to the loaded goods on the lorry which was stationed on far left side of the road near Musiram junction, the driver of the van bearing No.AP 31 T 0955 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant from behind, due to which the appellant fell down and received fractures on his right hand and some other injuries all over the body. His version is that soon after the accident, he was shifted to S.R. hospital, Gajapathinagaram by the respondent No.1-driver of the vehicle with a promise to compensate the petitioner fully and to provide treatment for the injuries sustained by

¶15

him and did not lodge report with the police in respect of the accident which occurred.

¶16

6. The third respondent-insurance company inter alia contended that the appellant/claimant did not receive any injuries in the accident. It is for the petitioner to establish by cogent evidence that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the first respondent. Even according to the appellant, there are three more persons-co-workers along with him at the time of incident besides the cleaner and driver of the lorry. But, he did not examine any of the persons, and he himself was examined as PW.1. It is the version of the appellant that the lorry was loaded wit logs, he and three more persons were there and involved in the process of tying the ropes. PW.1 stated in his deposition that initially he was treated in a private hospital, Kothavalasa and from there he was shifted to a private hospital in Gopalapatnam and he marked OP chit-Ex.A.5 issued by the SR Hospital. In Ex.A.5, it is mentioned that it is a medico legal case and if that is so, as rightly held by the Tribunal that the hospital people should have informed to the police about the occurrence of the accident. Further, there is no mention in OP chit Ex.A.5 that the appellant received injuries in the accident and in Ex.A.6-case sheet, it is also not mentioned that the appellant received injuries in the accident. According to the appellant, the doctor, who treated him is examined as PW.2 on commission. He spoke about certain injuries as spoken by the appellant. Further it is to be noticed that soon after discharge from the hospital also, the appellant did not file private complaint. He filed private complaint 15 days after discharge from the hospital. Even according to him, thus there occurred 38 days delay in

¶17

filing the complaint petition. Ex.A.1-FIR was registered only on 13.10.1998 on receiving the case, which was forwarded to the police, Kothavalasa after filing of the private complaint by the appellant. If really three persons, who are co-workers of the appellant were present at the time of accident, they could have at least lodged a report with the police, Kothavalasa. It is true that after receiving the complaint, the police investigated into the case and filed charge sheet against the driver of the alleged offending vehicle. But, the learned Tribunal on considering various aspects which are mentioned herein before took a view that the petitioner failed to establish that he received injuries in the accident said to have taken place on 08.09.1998.

¶18

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on a decision reported in RAVI v BADRINARAYANA AND OTHERS^[1] wherein the Supreme Court held as follows:

¶19

“Where the victim child aged 8 years was seriously injured in the accident it was more important for his father to get him treated first and he was not aware of the necessity of the law that lodging of FIR was condition precedent before filing claim petition and other persons in locality pressurized him that matter could be sorted out amicably since driver of vehicle was his neighbour, the delay in lodging FIR cannot be held fatal to the claim case.”

¶20

The Supreme Court further held as follows:

¶21

“If the Court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent

¶22

persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.”

¶23

It is true that merely because there is some delay in lodging the first information report the entitlement for compensation cannot be rejected. But the facts of the present case are different altogether to the facts of the case before the Supreme Court. In the instant case as already pointed out that there were three persons, who are co-workers along with the appellant at the time of accident. According to the appellant, it is not understandable as to why even though SR Hospital, Gopalapatnam where he was admitted, though recorded as medico legal case, no intimation was sent to the police. Even prior to that, he was admitted in private hospital at Kothavalasa and no intimation was sent to the police. The police conducted investigation after the case was forwarded to them by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Dr Gargi Devi, of Government dispensary treated the injured. But, the said Dr. Gargi Devi was not examined by the appellant. The appellant examined another doctor as PW.2, who allegedly treated him in SR hospital, Gopalpatnam. PW.2 for the first time stated before the learned Tribunal that he treated the appellant who was allegedly sustained injuries. Ex.A.2 is the wound certificate dated 21.10.1998 issued by Dr. Gargi Devi. In the said certificate, Dr. Gargi Devi mentioned that the injuries were healed up and she was informed that the injuries were treated in a private hospital and it is not possible to give any opinion about the injuries. She also mentioned therein that injury No.1 is simple in nature and might be due to direct contact with a sharp object.

¶24

8. From the nature of the injuries noticed by Dr. Gargi Devi in Ex.A.2-wound certificate issued by her obviously it appears that only the police sent the injured several days after he received injuries and she could not express any specific opinion as to the cause of injuries. Her version as to the injuries do not reveal that the injuries were received in an accident and further stated in the wound certificate specifically that the injuries might have been caused by coming into contact directly with a sharp object.

¶25

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the learned Tribunal below in my considered view rightly arrived at the opinion that the appellant could not be able to prove that he sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident as contended by him and that he was also unable to explain the inordinate delay of 38 days in filing the private complaint before the Magistrate. The findings recorded by the Tribunal below are based on evidence and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there are absolutely no valid grounds to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal.

¶26

10. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

___________________ Date: 01.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm

¶28

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶29

CMA NO. 2256 OF 2002

¶30

DATED: 01.02.2012

¶31

[1] AIR 2011 SC 1226

Kadimidi Ramana v. Kotana Appalanaidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kadimidi Ramana v. Kotana Appalanaidu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Mamidi Trinadh

Shilveru Ramulu Vs B. Bikshapathy

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs D. Jaffar , Shasik Jaffar, age 10 years, Minor by Father

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Burra Anitha , Anthamma

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Poshagoni Savitha

B.Narayana Vs C.Pedda Amarnath