Parameshwati v. Amir Chand and othersl, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that in road accide

Judgment

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated ll.O5.2ol2 (heieinafter rvill be referred as tmpugned orderJ passed by tJre learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter rvill be referred as "Tribunal') in M.V.o.P.No.395 of 2O10, the claimant has frled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order.

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

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under a) The petitioner frled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,O0,0OO/- against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the road traflic accident that occurred on 31.12.2OO9. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in the accident is that on 31.12.20O9 at 8.O0 PM while he was proceeding on Honda Activa bearing No. AP 09 AR 7101 2 from Balanagar towards Borabanda side at Balanagar X Roads, the driver of Ashok Leyland Lorr5r bearing No. Ap 31 TT OS41 (hereinafter will be referred as trime vehicle] came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the vehicle of the petitioner from backside. Due to the accident, the petitioner alleged to have fallen down and sustained grievous injuries. b) The petitioner was shifted to Susheela Orthopedic Hospital, Ameerpet for first aid and later was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for better treatment. The petitioner was discharged on O8.01.2010 and he incurred a sum of Rs.6O,OOO/- towards his medical expenses and for extra nourishment. c) A case in Cirne No.2l2O1O was registered for the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle and subsequently after completion of investigation, charge sheet was liled. I d) The petitioner was doing tailoring work at Chikkas Crafts, Banjara Readymade Cloth Merchants at Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet and earning Rs.S,OOO/- per month. But after the accident, the petitioner is unable to do his tailoring work ald lost his future earnings. Therefore, the petitioner claimed l 3 compensatioil of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the respondent Nos' 1 ar,d 2, who are owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively, for the injuries sustained by him

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No-1 remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed counter and the brief averments of which are as under: a) The petitioner sustained injuries due to bike skid. The vehicle was of the respondent No. 1 was implicated with a view to get compensation. The Police {iled charge sheet without proper enquiry ald investigation' b) The petitioner colluded with respondent No- 1. The petitioner was not holding a valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal lramed the foliowing issues i) Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injries to tle petitioner due to the rash and negligent driuing of the uehicle (Lorry) bearing No. AP 31 'l-l 0541 bg its driuer? ii) WTrctler the petitioner rs entitled to onA compensation and if so, at uhat quanhtm and u.that is the liabilitg of the respondents? iii) To tahat relieJ? ,/

6. In order to establish the case, the petitioner examined himself as PW 1 apart from relying on documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A7. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the rgspondents.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentar5r evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the claimant preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment and award suitable compensation.

8. Heard Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the claimant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Iearned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Compaly/Respondent No.2 and perused the entire material available on record including the grounds of Appeal.

9. The first ald foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal erred in relying on an endorsement alleged to be made by the appellant before the doctors, which is against the documents frled by the appellant. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that appellant failed to file scene of offence panchanama br rough sketch. \ n

10. As can be seen from the impugned order, while answering the issue No.l, the learned Tribunal by relying on Ex.A3 i.e., Medico Legal Certificate came to tfre conclusion that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 31 TT 0541. As per Ex.A3, the appellant/ injured alleged to have skid from bike on 31.I2.2OO9 at 11.30 PM at Balkampet. However, it is to be observed that when an injured encounters with an accident, he would be under tremendous pressure and shock, due to which he may not remember the exact reason for sustaining injuries. Moreover, in few instances, the injured may not be in a position to know the cause of accident. Even il the present case, as per Ex.A3 the injured alleged to have skid from bike but what is the reason for skid of his bike is not elicited. The bike of injured might have skid due to the coilision from the crime vehicle. The petitioner/ injured might have disclosed to the doctors as to how he sustained injuries i.e., due to skid from the bike. The orat evidence of injured as PW1 coupled with the other documentary evidence under Ex.A1 (FIR) and A.2 (Charge sheet) discloses that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT O541. A perusal of Ex.A2 discloses that the Police, Balalagar conducted scene of offence I 6 panchanama and drew rough sketch. But mere faiiure to file panchanama and rough sketch cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle. It is not mandatory in all the cases to file scene of offence panchanama, rough sketch and motor vehicle inspector report to establish the negligence on the l part of driver of the crime vehicle.

11. It is well settled principle of law that standards of proof like in a criminal trial are inappiicable in Motor Accident Claims cases and standards to be followed in such claims is one based on preponderalce of probability rather than establishing the case beyond reasonable doubt, as the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg itself is a benelicial legislation which has been framed with the prime objective of providing relief to the family members, who lost their family member in a vehicular accident. Unfortunately in the present case the learned Tribunal erred in adjudicating the matter like a criminal trial, discarding the oral and documentary evidence on record. Moreover, until and unless there is pima facie material to establish that the crime vehicle was involved in the alieged accident, the police would not have Iaid charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle. In \ I I .a 7 Parameshwati vs. Amir Chand and othersl, the Honourable Supreme Court observed that in road accident ciaims the strict principle of proof in a criminal case is not required.

12. In vie w of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered vieu' that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 31 TT

13. Now coming to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured/petitioner, as per Ex.A3, the injured alleged to have sustained lacerated wound of 5 x 4 cm in depth. It is the evidence of PW 1 that initially he was shifted to Susheela Orthopedic Hospital at Ameerpet for first aid and later he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. He further deposed that he underwent operation for avulsion injury to his left leg knee joint on 06.01.2010 and discharged on 08,O1.2010 arrd in this regard he relied upon Ex.A4 (Discharge summary) and Ex.A4 (OP Card) issued by Gardhi Hospital. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,O00/- towards lacerated wound and Rs.25,OO0/- towards pain and sufferance I (2O11) SCC 63s / a for undergoing treatment to avulsion injury of his left leg knee joint.

14. Though the petitioner claimed that he has incurred Rs.6O,OOO/- towards medical and extra nourishment, no documentary evidence is placed to substantiate the same. However, as per Ex.A6 i.e., bunch of medical bi1ls the petitioner incurred Rs.3,174/- towards medical bills. However, as the petitioner alleged to have undergone surgery, he might incur medical expenses even after surgery. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses.

15. Since, the petitioner sustained grievous injury, he requires good nutritious food and vitamin supplements to recovery quickly from the injuries. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.5,O00/- towards extra nourishment. Apart from that the petitioner might have incurred some amount towards transportation to visit hospitals, where he underwent treatment. It is pertinent to note that even after surgery, the pelitioner availed the treatment at Gandhi Hospital as outpatient. Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.S,OOO/- towards transportation expenses. Since the claimant could attend his day to day Activities during the bed ridden period, he might require the 9 services of an attendant to discharge his personal works. Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.S,OOO/- towards attendant charges.

16. The petitioner alleged to have been doing tailoring work and earning Rs.5,0O0/- per month. But no documentary evidence is adduced to that extent. However, considering the nature of the work being done by the petitioner for his livelihood and considering the economic conditions during the relevant period, this Court is inclined to hx the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.4,5O0/- per month. Since the petitioner sustained grievous injury, he needs bed rest at least for a month ald cluring such period, he may not be able to attend his dut5r. Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.4,5OO/- towards loss of earnings.

17. Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant No. 1 is entitled for the compensation under various heads, as follows:

51.No. Name of the head 1 2 J Pain and sufferance I\{edical expenses Transportation charges Compensation ar,r'arded to the claimant (Rs.) 2s,oool- s,000/- s,000/- I 10 4 .) 6 7 Extra nourishment Loss of earnings Attendant Charges Lacerated wound s,00o/- 4,soo l - s,ooo/- s,0o0/- Total s4,soo/-

18. Now coming to the liability, there is no dispute that respondent No. 1 is the owner of the crime vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Though the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.l remained exparte, the respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed written statement denying its liability to pay the compensation. Except contending that the crime vehicie was implicated by owner of the vehicle and the petitioner by playing fraud, there is no evidence either oral or documentary to deny its liability to pay compensation to the petitioner/injured. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle respectively are jointly ald severally iiable to pay the compensaLion to the petitioner.

19. In t1.e result, the Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order and decree dated II.O5.2O|2 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Ciaims Tribuna1 - cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in \ 1L M.V.O.P.No.395 of 2O1O. Accordingly, the claim petition filed by the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.395 of 201O is allowed ih part by awarding compensation of Rs.54,5OO/-, which shall carry interest al 7 .5%o per annum. from the date of hling of the petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount without furnishing any securit5r. There shall be no order as to costs. Misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending shal1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// S Sd/- T JAYASREE ISTANT REGISTRAR \t \,/ SECTION OFFICER 1r \)

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. (With Records)

2. One CC to SRl. AKKAIvI ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies V{ - To PR ; HIGH COURT DATED: 2010112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.219 ot 2017 STA TE O.+ ( 16 \ t [Qq \ ,z () , -.1 :i-..-:-i-' ) .) J I ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS G .oCd tr. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 219 OF 2017 Between: S. Sai Kumar, S/o. Vasantha Kumar, Occ: Tailoring R/o. H.No.10-12-10312, Chilkalguda, Secunderabad. .APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS AND

1. D. Anandam, S/o. D. Srui Appadu, Aged [Vlajor, Occ: Business R/o. Chandaka Gottipalli, Anandapuram, Visakhapatnam.

2. M/s. Sriram General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Manager Olo.4-1- 370/1, ll floor, Kundam Estate, Beside Jaya lnternational, Abids, Hyderabad. ' (R2- Dismissed for default vide C.O. Dated: 31 .03.2015) ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O. P.No.395 of 201 O dated. 1 '1 .05.2012 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the IttlVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI. AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate for the appellant and of SRl. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed by awarding compensation of Rs.54, 500/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand and Five Hundred only) which shall carry interest a|7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally; 2' That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment: 3' That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount without furnishing any security;

4. That there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal; //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \\=-.- SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar -cum- | Additionar chief - Judge, City Civil Court, SecunderaOaO. --"* 2. Two CD Copies fr-- To PR HIGH COURT DATED: 2010112025 DECREE MACMA.N o"219 ot 2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS ,*tau l-1 W"