APHC010500602006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH Wenesday, the two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Between: C. Ravi Sankar S/o. Ramakrishnaiah Tirupati, Chittoor District and B.M.Madhava Rao and another Counsel for the appellant: 1. Smt. S.V.Bharatha Lakshmi Counsel for the respondents: 1. Sri N. Rama Krishna The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ay, the twenty fourth day of September, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi C.M.A. No.4475 of 2003 Ramakrishnaiah Tirupati, Chittoor District ...Appellant B.M.Madhava Rao and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Smt. S.V.Bharatha Lakshmi Counsel for the respondents: Rama Krishna The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] day of September, The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi ...Appellant ...Respondents 2 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal was preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and the decree dated 04.08.2003 in M.V.O.P.No.52 of 2000 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupathi. 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents. Though the notice has been served on respondent No.1, no appearance has been made. The respondent No.2 appeared through a counsel. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 4. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: a. On 20.12.1998, at about 3.00 p.m., when the claimant, along with his friend, L.Narendra Naidu, was going on a Hero Honda Motor cycle driven by his friend to Kapilatheertham on Korlagunta to Kapilatheertham road, an Ambassadar car bearing No.TN 02 D.0612 came behind them, being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the rear side of the motor cycle. As a result, the claimant fell down from the motor cycle and sustained grievous injuries to his left knee, thigh and other parts of the body. The claimant was immediately admitted in S.V.R.R.G.G.Hospital, Tirupathi by one G.Krishna and his friend Venkatesu who were present at that place, as the rider of the motor cycle fled away. The claimant was later shifted to S.V.I.M.S. Hospital, Tirupathi, for treatment by experts. He was treated there till 24.12.1998, later he was shifted to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai where he was treated till 06.02.1999 and underwent operation to his left leg. Skin grafting was done to the 3 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 left leg of the claimant by removing skin from the right leg. Steel rods and plates were fixed to his left leg. Subsequently, he was operated twice. Since, he suffered permanent partial disability he is unable to walk and lead normal life and not able to earn, having lost his earning capacity. He spent huge amount for his medical expenses. Therefore, he claimed compensation of Rs.6,50,000/-. b. The claimant was in intensive care unit being unconscious and could not give report to the police. The police too did not record his statement. The driver of the car gave a false report with concocted version to save his skin and police conducted a biased investigation, but the claimant sent representation regarding the same and he filed private complaint against the driver of the car for the offence under section 338 I.P.C. The claimant used to do dairy business and cultivation and was earning income of Rs.10,000/- per month from his dairy business and Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from his agriculture. Since the claimant suffered permanent partial disability due to the injury to his left leg and lost his earning capacity, he sought compensation under different heads. 5. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of the ambassador car remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the respondent No.2 which is the insurer of the car filed a counter opposing the claim by denying the averments in the petition and further mainly stating that the police prepared a final report finding that there was no negligence of the driver of the car and the final report is referred as a mistake of fact. It is further contended that the claimant himself drove the motorcycle at the time of the accident and there was no pillion rider and that the accident was caused due to his own fault as he had no driving licence. The amount claimed was also stated to be excessive. 4 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 6. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. Ex.A1: C.C. of F.I.R. in Cr.No.156 of 1998 of Traffic P.S.,Tirupathi. Ex.A2: Report given by C.Srinivas. Ex.A3: No.1 Adangal. Ex.A4: Certificate issued by V.A.O., Tirupathi. Ex.A5: Eenadu publication, dated 21.12.1998. Ex.A6: Statements of P.W.1 and G.Krishna. Ex.A7: Rough Sketch copy. Ex.A8: Photo of petitioner and his business. Ex.A9: Negatives of Ex.A8. Ex.A10: C.C. of wound certificate. Ex.A11: Xerox copy of operation record of S.V.I.M.S. Ex.A12: Discharge summary along with P.D.certificate. Ex.A13: Medical bills of S.V.I.M.S. for Rs.19,603-50 ps. Ex.A14: Medical bills for Rs.2,065-35 ps. Ex.A15: Medical bills for Rs.118-10 ps. Ex.A16: Hospital bills 2 Nos.for Rs.41,393/- and Rs.22,750/-. Ex.A17: Medical bills and hospital charges of Ramachandra Hospital for Rs.10,808-85 ps. Ex.A18: Bunch of miscellaneous bills for Rs.1,210/-. Ex.A19: Diet charges bills for Rs.5,075/-. Ex.A20: Bunch of transport 5 bills for Rs.4,155/-. Ex.A21: Operation record of S.V.I.M.S. 7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked. Ex.B1: True copy of policy. Ex.B2: Final report copy in Cr.No.156 of 1998. 5 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 8. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.25,000/- with proportionate costs and simple interest @ 9 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondents as joint and several liability. 9. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was filed seeking enhancement of compensation. There is no cross appeal or cross objections by the insurance company or the owner of the car. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submitted that the Tribunal granted a meagre amount of compensation ignoring the evidence on record and also failed to consider the permanent disability of the claimant which lead to loss of earning capacity and also his future earnings. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in holding that the claimant was in fault in causing the accident, by assumptions. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contended that the Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the evidence regarding the manner of the accident and found that the accident was caused due to the own fault of the claimant and such a finding does not require any interference in this appeal. The points for consideration are:- (i) Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Ambassador car? (ii) Whether the award and the decree are liable to be set aside and grant compensation to the appellant / claimant? POINTS: 12. In support of the version of the claimant, besides examining himself as P.W.1, he examined L. Narendra Naidu, so-called rider of the 6 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 motor cycle as P.W.5 and P.W.2, an eyewitness. Both these witnesses spoke in favour of the claimant regarding the occurrence of the accident as stated in the claim petition. R.W.2 is the driver of the car and R.W.3 is the investigating officer. The claimant filed statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. as exhibit A6. They are the statements of P.Ws 1 and 2, who is another eyewitness stated to be witness to the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal found that as per the criminal record, the petitioner himself was rider of the motor cycle and is inconsistent with the evidence and pleadings of the claimant. The Tribunal further materially observed that though the version of the claimant is that P.W.5 fled away after the accident, contrary to the same, he gave evidence that he had left the place of accident and gone to the parents of PW1 to inform them about the accident. The Tribunal has not believed either version as he would not have left the injured or fled away or go to the parents to inform about the accident and on the other hand, he would have carried the injured to the hospital as he was critically injured. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of P.Ws 2 & 5 observing that their evidence does not inspire confidence of the Tribunal as they are friends of P.W.1 and their evidence is against the statements made in the investigation of the crime. That apart, the first information report omits the presence of any person other than the claimant driving the motorcycle. That apart, the investigation conducted by R.W.3 revealed that the claimant himself was the rider of the motorcycle and filed the final report with such finding of fact and that the evidence of R.W.3 corroborates the evidence of R.W.2. On critical examination of the further evidence, keeping in view the observation that the motor cycle was driven by the claimant himself, the Tribunal found that the manner of the accident does not indicate that the driver of the car was at fault in causing the accident. In this regard, the Tribunal referred the rough 7 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 sketch of the scene of offence marked as exhibit A7 and noticed that at the place of accident, there is a gap between two road dividers. According to the claimant, while the motor cycle was crossing, through the gap in the road divider, from east to west duly cautioned with signal “Turn towards North”, the car hit the motor cycle from backside. According to R.W.2, when he saw a motor cyclist suddenly crossing the road from east to west at a distance of 10 feet ahead of the car through the gap between the road dividers, he had applied breaks to avert the accident. The Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the claimant that the reason that if at all the version of the claimant is true, he could not have received the injury to his left leg and further exhibit A7 shows that there is a skid mark of the car to a length of 25 feet up to the place of the accident which indicates the attempt made by the driver of the car to avert the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal observed that if the claimant was slowly and cautiously proceeding through the gap between the road dividers with indication of crossing, there was no need for the driver of the car to apply sudden breaks and swerved the car to the left. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the fault of the claimant himself. As against such observations of the Tribunal, there is no tenable ground raised in the appeal as to how such observations are erroneous. After perusal of the evidence, this Court also is of the same view and there is no reason to find fault with the observation of the Tribunal. As is already noted, there is an exhaustive discussion of the entire evidence and the contentions of both parties and the evidence on record to arrive at such conclusion by the Tribunal. Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award on the aspect of the rash and negligence of the driver in causing the accident. 8 BSB, J C.M.A.No.4475 of 2003 13. In view of such finding, neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal under no fault liability is not challenged by the respondents. This Court does not see any reason to set aside the award and the decree impugned in the appeal. 14. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 24-09-2025 GRL / RAR