THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.67 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order and decree in O.P.No.170 of 2001 dated 11.07.2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Cum – VI Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Anantapur. The third respondent-insurance company is the appellant herein. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 01.06.2000 at about 2.00 p.m., while the petitioner along with others was traveling in the tractor bearing No.AP-02-V-975 with trailer bearing No.976 with a load of soil, near Thimmapuram the driver drove it in high speed, on account of that the petitioner fell down from that trally, the rear tyres of the trally went over the right leg of the petitioner. The petitioner was shifted to Padmavathi Nursing Home, Guntakal, thereafter to Viswabharathi Hospital, Kurnool, for better treatment. His right leg was amputated up to knee. He was admitted into Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Respondents 1 and 3 filed separate counters denying the allegations in the petition. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 1.06.2000 due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor Trailor bearing No.AP-02-V-975 and AP-02-V-976 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from which respondent? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 copy of policy and Ex.X1 letter issued by the doctor were marked. On the basis of the material on record, the trial Court granted total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is a false case. According to the petitioner-claimant, the accident has taken place on 01.06.2000 and the petitioner underwent treatment at Padmavathi Nursing Home, Guntakal, thereafter, at Viswabharathi Hospital, Kurnool and thereafter at Government Hospital and that the complaint was given only on 01.07.2000, i.e. one month after the accident, which clearly shows that the petitioner did not suffer any injuries in the accident and that it is a case of subsequent manipulation. 6. Though the first respondent is served, none appeared. 7. As seen from the records, the accident has taken place on 01.06.2000. Ex.A2 shows that the injured person was first seen by the doctor at Government Hospital, Kurnool on 29.06.2000 at 4.40 p.m., by then, he had amputation of his right leg. The wound certificate also says that he was admitted on 06.06.2000 with gangrene of foot and toe, which was amputated on 17.06.2000 up to knee joint and he was discharged on 29.06.2000. Ex.A2 also refers that he joined in the hospital on 29.06.2000 saying that he has received injuries in an accident on 29.06.2000. There is some confusion in the certificate. However, the fact remains that the petitioner joined in a private hospital at Guntakal on 01.06.2000 and in another private hospital at Kurnool on 06.06.2000 and the Government Hospital only on 29.06.2000. In between, he suffered amputation. Neither the private hospital at Guntakal, where the petitioner joined initially, nor another private hospital at Kurnool, where he joined on 06.06.2000 informed the police about the petitioner suffering injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Explanation of the petitioner is that initially it was thought to be a case of minor injuries, as such, he did not give any complaint to police. Even assuming it to be true also, on 17.06.2000 his leg was amputated. That means, at least, some time before that he was aware of his injury being serious in nature. At least, immediately, after the amputation, it is clear that the injury was serious. In case, the petitioner really suffered injuries in the accident, he ought to have given the complaint at least on 17.06.2000. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, it appears to be a case of the petitioner suffering injuries elsewhere, or his leg was amputated on account of some ailment and making use of the same, he wants to claim compensation. The trial Court has referred to this aspect of the case. It is not clear as to the same was argued before the trial Court or not. There are suggestions to P.W.1 in the above direction. Thus, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no positive material to show that the petitioner suffered injuries in an accident and only on account of that his leg was amputated. On the other hand, it appears to be a clear case of manipulation. Considering these circumstances, it is not a case where any compensation can be granted to the petitioner. Appeal is accordingly allowed and the O.P.170 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge,Anantapur shall stand dismissed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 22nd October 2010, Rns