IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2188 of 2009 Between: Duvvasi Rajababu … Appellant And: Poreddy Sudhakar Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.2188 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.05.2007 in OP No.96 of 2006 on the file of the MACT cum District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed claim application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.05.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, he along with his friend Srinivas, was proceeding on a motor cycle TVS Star bearing No.AP 15 S 2378 and at about 5 p.m., a car bearing No.AP 15 W 5998 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver coming in the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle near II incline area, Godavarikhani, as a result of which, the claimant, who was the pillion rider, sustained grievous and multiple injuries. Police registered a case in Cr.No.89 of 2005 against the driver of the car- first respondent. 4. The driver and owner of the car remained ex-parte. The insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.9 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.1 policy copy was marked on behalf of the insurer. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the claimant failed to establish the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Though the Tribunal estimated the total compensation payable at Rs.25,000/-, the claim petition was dismissed in view of the finding on issue No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 6. The accident occurred on the evening of 24.05.2005. Ex.A.1 FIR was lodged on 14.06.2005 i.e., about three weeks after the accident. The Tribunal dismissed the claim application solely on the ground that the delay in giving FIR was not properly explained and there was no satisfactory explanation for not giving FIR immediately after the accident. In Ex.A.1 it is stated and PW.1 claimant also testified that immediately after the accident, he was taken to the hospital and admitted there by the driver of the car, who promised to pay some amount and settle the claim, but however, subsequently he did not turn up and therefore, the claimant has been waiting for settlement of the claim without giving any report to the police and hence, the delay. The claimant was discharged from the hospital on 04.06.2005. Within ten days, thereafter, FIR was lodged on 14.06.2005. The explanation offered by the claimant for the delay in lodging the complaint appears to be plausible in view of the evidence of PW.2-Medical Officer, who testified that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on the same date of accident i.e., 24.05.2005 and that he was discharged on 04.06.2005. It is significant to note that after due investigation, police filed charge sheet against the driver of the car. It is therefore not a case where a false vehicle is sought to be implicated for the purpose of making claim for compensation. Mere delay in lodging the FIR Ex.A.1 does not by itself prove fatal. When the delay is properly explained, the claim cannot be defeated merely on the ground that the FIR was not issued immediately after the accident. The dismissal of the claim application by the Tribunal based on mere conjectures and surmises and presumption solely because of the delay in lodging the FIR is therefore, untenable. The factum of the accident involving the crime vehicle and the factum of the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident and the prosecution of the driver of the offending vehicle which are all borne out by the evidence on record would clearly establish that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 24.05.2005. 7. The medical evidence of PW.2 coupled with Ex.A.4 medical certificate, Ex.A.5 CT Scan report and Ex.A.8 X-ray films would go to show that the claimant sustained four injuries, including fracture of anterior skull base, which is grievous injury and also right optic nerve injury to the right eye, which is also grievous, besides two simple injuries. The claimant was also inpatient in the hospital for about two weeks. Under the above circumstances, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and the period of hospitalization, it is considered just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- each for the two grievous injuries and Rs.1000/- each for the two simple injuries. The claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,200/- towards medical expenses as borne out by the bunch of medical bills Ex.A.6. The claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5000/- towards transport charges. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.37,200/-, which is rounded to Rs.37,000/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned order dismissing the claim application is set aside and consequently, OP No.96 of 2006 is allowed in part. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.12.2011 bss