This is an appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order dismissing an enhancement claim for compensation. The Tribunal awarded minimal amounts for treatment but rejected claims for medical expenses for pre-existing injuries due to lack of reliable evidence and inconsistency in documents. The appellate court dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.51 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimant in O.P.No.815 of 2001 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under E.C.Act – cum – III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge – cum – XVII Additional Chief Judge (MACT), Hyderabad.
The case of the claimant was that on 04.02.2001 at about 6.30 am when he was proceeding by walk from Sabastain road to medical shop situated opposite to Gandhi Hospital to purchase medicines, a scooter bearing registration No.AP 10/K7753 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. He was immediately shifted to New City Hospital. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter bearing registration No.AP 10/K-7753 belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. However, with regard to the injuries sustained by him, the claimant stated that he sustained grievous injuries and fracture of right rib 10 and 11. He was shifted to New City Hospital, S.D.Road, Secunderabad, where he took treatment for one day. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant sustained injuries even prior to the date of the accident, and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till payment. The Tribunal noticed that the claimant himself stated that he took treatment as in-patient for one day, and hence, he was entitled for an amount of Rs.750/- towards room rent and Rs.250/towards nursing charges. The Tribunal brushed aside the evidence under Ex.A5 relating to the amount spent for medical expenses with regard to the injuries sustained by him prior to the accident. The claimant did not examine the Doctor who treated him or anyone connected with the New City Hospital.
Learned Counsel for the appellant advanced argument that in view of the finding recorded by the Tribunal, the claimant suffered injuries in the accident and
the documentary evidence filed by the claimant should have been taken into consideration for awarding compensation.
The Tribunal did not award compensation based on the documentary evidence in view of the inconsistencies contained therein. In those circumstances, the claimant should have explained the inconsistencies by examining someone connected with the hospital. In the absence of any reliable evidence with regard to Exs.A3 to A7, the claim of the claimant for enhancement of compensation cannot be entertained.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
________________________________ (A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J)
16.11.2015
vs
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the enhancement of compensation claimed by the appellant can be failed in view of inconsistencies in documentary evidence and absence of reliable evidence.
Whether the claimant's entitlement to medical charges necessitates examination of a doctor or hospital personnel to substantiate prior injuries.
Whether the Tribunal's refusal to rely on certain documents due to inconsistencies and consequent dismissal of appeal is sustainable.
Claimant/Appeellant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
A. Ramalingeswara Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
