IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No.934 of 2002 Between: Rajender. … Petitioner And 1. K.Krishna Reddy. 2. The National Insurance Company limited, represented by its Branch Manager. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.No. 934 of 2002 ORDER: - Claim petition was filed by the appellant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained in the accident which occurred on 02.05.1995. It is the case of the claimant that he was traveling in the jeep, which was involved in the accident, on account of the rash and negligent driving of a truck belonging to the first respondent and insured by the second respondent. It is claimed in the claim petition that the said truck bearing No.AP 16T 1312 was driven in rash and negligent manner resulting in death of two occupants of the jeep and injuries to others including the claimant. The present claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.one lakh on the ground that claimant has suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries. The said claim petition was opposed by the respondent- insurance company denying the involvement of the claimant in the alleged accident. The claim petitioner on his behalf examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who treated him as P.W.2. The said P.W.2 has given certificate dated 05.05.1995, which is marked as Ex.C1. The tribunal below on considering the material on record held that the claim of the claimant cannot be accepted as he has failed to produce any wound certificate or atleast outpatient ticket or certificate from the Government hospital where he received treatment and his name is not found in the F.I.R.-Ex.B1. The claim petition was accordingly dismissed. Hence, the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has strenuously contended that the claimant is a cleaner of the jeep and was traveling in the jeep. On account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending truck, the accident was caused leading to death of two persons and injuries to other occupants. The learned counsel contends that though in the F.I.R. his name is not mentioned, injuries to other persons is recorded and the claimant is one among them. The learned counsel also relies upon the evidence of P.W. 2 and certificate Ex.C1 given by him and on that basis submits that the claimant is entitled to compensation and rejection of his claim petition in toto is unsustainable. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, I have seen the records and particularly the copy of the claim petition, which mentions regarding nature of injuries as follows: “Both hands fractured, both legs injured, head injured and other parts of the body also received injuries. Due to said injuries and fractures he got permanent disability. Due to the said accident he was first shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and thereafter he is taking treatment with private doctors.” Further towards end of para 26 it is mentioned as follows: “Due to injuries and fractures he get permanent disability. He is unable to move from bed and do any work. He is unable to work. He is depending upon others. His future earnings and aminities are effected. Still he is taking treatment with private doctors. The expenditure incurred till now is Rs.40,000/-. As against the aforesaid averment in the claim petition, Ex.C1 certificate given by P.W.2 reads as follows: “This is to certify that Mr. Rajender, S/o.Ganga Reddy, aged 18 years, R/o.Pochampadu sustained injuries in a road accident on 02.05.1995. Injuries both hands including both the hand parts (upper arms and fore arm) and simple injuries to legs and to the forehead.” On cross-examination however, P.W.2 has stated as follows:- “I issued Ex.C1 in my private capacity. The injury mentioned in Ex.C1 is of simple in nature. He was treated by him for two days only. It is not true to say that I have issued Ex.C1 in order to help the petitioner.” The aforesaid evidence of P.W. 2 and the certificate given by him, Ex.C1 does not at all support the statement of the claimant in the claim petition as extracted above. As rightly observed by the Tribunal below, there is no evidence of any treatment said to have been taken by the claimant in the Government hospital, Kamareddy, nor there is any medical record or evidence of expenditure, more importantly there is no material to connect the claim of the accident in question. It is clear and apparent that claimant has made false statements while making these aforesaid claims and though he claims permanent disability in the claim petition, as per Ex.C1 injuries sustained by him are simple injures. The award of the tribunal therefore warrants no interference. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ (VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J) 26.11.2009. Lmv