IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.950 OF 2009 Between: M.Narsainga Rao …Appellant A n d V.Venkatesulu and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.950 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 17.12.2008 in O.P.No.565 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein, claiming compensation, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.12.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, he was proceeding in a jeep bearing No.AP 02 W 0638 along with his relatives and near Madhavaram village, on account of rash and negligent driving of the said jeep by its driver, the vehicle dashed against a stationed KSRTC bus, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries, including fracture of left hip joint and left femur and that he was shifted to Navodaya Medical College Hospital, Raichur and from there to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Subsequent to discharge from the hospital, he filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Yemmiganur which was registered as Cr.No.10 of 2006 and subsequently after due investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the jeep. 4. The 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex prate and the 2nd respondent-insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Exs.C-1 and C-2 case sheet of NIMS and medical bills issued by NIMS Hospital were also marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent- insurer. By the impugned order, the Tribunal dismissed the claim application on the ground that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained the injuries in the accident, involving the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, however, recorded a finding to the effect that the medical evidence on record is in favour of the claimant, but, however, rejected his claim on the ground that the claimant failed to establish the factum of the accident. 6. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on 11.12.2005 while he was travelling in the jeep and on account of rash and negligent driving by its driver, the jeep dashed against the stationed KSRTC bus, resulting in multiple grievous injuries to the claimant. The F.I.R-Ex.A- 1 was registered based on the private complaint filed by the claimant before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Yemmiganur on 27.04.2006, which was referred to the police. The delay of about 4½ months in lodging the F.I.R appears to have weighed heavily with the Tribunal while rejecting the claim for compensation. The claimant has pleaded and also testified that immediately after the accident he was shifted to Navodaya Hospital, Raichur and from there he was shifted to NIMS, Hyderabad and, therefore, he could not give any complaint immediately and after discharge from the hospital he came to know that the police have not registered any case pertaining to the accident and so he filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate. Of course, the case sheet Ex.C-1 shows that the claimant was discharged from NIMS on 27.12.2005. Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-8 bill issued by Adiseshu Trauma Centre and Sri Basava Nursing Home and Maternity Hospital, Raichur also showed that the claimant has taken treatment from them prior to 27.12.2005 only. The claimant, no doubt, did not take any steps immediately after discharge from the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, but filed the private complaint about 4½ months later. It is, however, to be noted that based on the private complaint, the learned Magistrate has forwarded the same to the police for investigation and report and the police after due investigation, filed charge sheet also against the driver of the offending vehicle vide Ex.A-3. Hence, simply because there was delay in filing the complaint, the claim for compensation cannot be rejected, especially when the occurrence of the accident and the factum of the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident have been duly established after due investigation by the police. 7. In a recent decision in RAVI V. BADRINARAYAN & ORS[1] the Apex Court held as follows: “It is well settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doging so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if the claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is a delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” In the above case also, there was a delay of three months in filing the F.I.R and it was held that such delay in lodging the F.I.R would not prove fatal so as to result in dismissal of the claim petition. In the complaint, the delay was sought to be explained by stating that on medical advice he could not move out for four months as steel rods were inserted in the left thigh and hence the complaint could not be filed immediately. In the circumstances, it is held that the rejection of the claim by the Tribunal on the ground of delay in filing the complaint is, therefore, unsustainable. 8. The evidence on record shows that the claimant sustained multiple fractures on the left hip joint, left femur, besides other injuries and he was shifted to Navodaya Medical College Hospital, Raichur and from there to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent surgery and the injuries resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 35%. In support of the same, the claimant examined P.W.2 Professor of Orthopaedic Department who treated the claimant at NIMS Hospital and P.W.3 Civil Assistant Surgeon, Ananatapur, who issued the disability certificate Ex.A-9. Ex.A-2 the medico legal certificate issued by Navodaya Medical College Hospital, Raichur and Ex.A-4 the discharge summary, Ex.A-10 the x-rays and A-9 the disability certificate would all establish the plea of the claimant regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him and the treatment undergone by him and also the fact that the injuries have resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 35%. In Ex.A-9, P.W.3 has stated that the claimant always needs a stick for support and he cannot squat or cross his legs or stand for longer period and cannot walk fast. Ex.A-4 is the discharge summary issued by Navodaya Medical College Hospital, Raichur. P.W.2 has stated that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 17.12.2005 and was discharged on 27.12.2005 and during the said period, he underwent surgery for the grievous injury of fracture of hip joint. He also produced Ex.C-1 the case sheet of NIMS Hospital and Ex.C-2 consolidated medical bills amounting to Rs.18,322/-. 9. The evidence on record shows that the claimant sustained two fractures which are both grievous injuries and so he is entitled for Rs.5,000/- for each of the injures towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the fact that the claimant was admitted in the hospital as inpatient for about 10 days and keeping in view the nature of the injures sustained by him, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. In view of the fact that the claimant was initially taken to a hospital at Raichur and from there shifted to Hyderabad and also in view of the transport bills-Ex.A-8, the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges. Ex.A-5 the bunch of medical bills issued by Adisesha Trauma Centre, Anantapur and Ex.C- 2 which shows the expenditure of Rs.20,000/- and the claimant is held entitled for the same. 10. Insofar as permanent disability is concerned, the testimony of P.W.3 coupled with Ex.A-9 would go to show that injures have resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 35%. The claimant is stated to be a retired government employee, aged 68 years by the date of the accident. Admittedly, he has been drawing the pension as before and there is no loss of earning capacity as such on account of the permanent disability. However, the testimony of P.W.3 who issued Ex.A-9 would go to show that the disability has adversely affected the mobility of the claimant and he cannot squat or walk fast or stand for longer time. The claimant is, therefore, held entitled for compensation towards loss of amenities of life on account of permanent disability and in the circumstances and having regard to the age of the claimant, it is considered that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- should be just and reasonable. The claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses. 11. In the circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. Admittedly, the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force by the date of accident. Hence, both the respondents are held jointly and severally liable to pay the above said compensation and they are directed to deposit the same before the Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed as stated above with costs through out. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2011 Lrkm. [1] 2011 (2) SCALE 618