THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3522 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment dated 29.12.2004 in O.P.No.295 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad in dismissing the claim for compensation. A claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was made by the claimant contending that on 28.01.1999 at about 1.00 p.m. when was going on foot at Nizampur cross road, a tractor bearing No.AP-25-T-4951 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, as a result of which he suffered injury to the eye and lost sight and he spent Rs.60,000/- for treatment and suffered disability. The 1st respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company, both of them are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the liability, nature of the incident and also the quantum of compensation. The lower Tribunal, after considering the material on record, has dismissed the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor accident and if so whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? POINT: The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the complaint was given five days after the incident and as per the charge sheet the father’s name of the petitioner was shown as Sayanna whereas in the petition the petitioner mentioned his father’s name as Sailu, therefore, there is doubt about the identity. The reasoning is not correct. There is no difference between Sayanna and Sailu, being called in the villages and that cannot be a ground to say that the petitioner is not the real claimant. The fact that a complaint has been given by the petitioner and it was investigated and charge sheet was filed by the police clearly goes to show that there is no dispute about the identity of the petitioner being the person, who has received injuries. It is true that there is a delay in lodging of the complaint. However, there is no material on record to show as to the compelling reasons for the petitioner to make a false claim. Therefore, I find no reason to doubt the claim of the petitioner that he received injuries in a motor accident. So far as the nature of the injuries is concerned, the petitioner was satisfied by examining P.W.2 and the lower Tribunal has discredited his evidence on certain observations made by this Court, but, which was subsequently expunged. The strong contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Ex.A-4 clearly goes to show that the petitioner was admitted in Sarojini Devi Eye Hospital, Hyderabad on 29.01.1999 and was discharged on 06.02.1999. This certificate also cannot be given much credence for the simple reason that if it is not proved by examining the doctor, who has treated the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet and also taking into consideration the partial evidence of P.W.2, a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) is granted as compensation on all counts. The interest shall be paid on the above compensation amount at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 16-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3522 of 2011 DATE: 16-12-2011 MR