THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MOTOR ACCIDENTS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2875 OF 2008 DATED: 13-08-2010 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 01-03-2007, in M.V.O.P.No.318 of 2001 on the file of the learned Chairman, MACT-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupathi, wherein the claim of the 1st respondent herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.4,62,389/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- on account of the injury sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 16-09-2000 near Kayampeta bus stand at Puttur-Vadamalapet main road. According to him, on that day at about 7.00 p.m., while himself and his friends were going to Kayampeta bus stop a motor cycle bearing No.TN.20C.4995, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the 1st respondent herein as a result of which, he sustained fracture of right leg and he was taken to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupathi and later he was shifted to Apollo hospital, Chennai for better treatment. It is further pleaded that the claimant was aged 35 years and was a post graduate working as Sales Officer in Prithvi Biotech India Private Limited, Bangalore on a salary of Rs.6000/- per month and on account of the injury sustained he became permanently disabled and he is not able to walk. A case in Cr.No.1 of 2001 was registered against the driver of the offending motor cycle by the Station House Officer, Vadamalapet police station and subsequently after investigation charge sheet was also filed against him and it was taken cognizance in C.C.No.15 of 2001 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Puttur. 4. 2nd respondent herein, owner of the vehicle, remained ex parte. Appellant herein, the insurer, filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the strength of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 20/C-4995 belonging to the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner sustained permanent disability due to compound communitted fracture to shaft of right tibia in the accident? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation as prayed for in the petition? 4. To what relief? And the following Additional Issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of petitioner himself while he was riding his own motor cycle bearing No.TN.20-C/4994? 2. Whether the accident occurred on 16.09.1999 or 16.09.2000? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked on behalf of the claimant. R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. Ex.X1 was marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.TN.20C.4995 by its driver. 8. On additional issue No.1, the Tribunal held that the accident was not on account of any negligence on the part of the claimant. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,62,389/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 9. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the motor cycle bearing No.TN.20C.4995, belonging to the 2nd respondent herein, was not the crime vehicle involved in the accident. In fact, such a plea was raised before the Tribunal also, based on the observation said to have been made in Ex.X1- accident register to the effect that Dr.Prasada Rao, the then C.M.O., who examined the claimant, made an endorsement to the effect that P.W.1 sustained injuries due to the negligent driving of his own vehicle. P.W.1 denied to have made any such statement before the doctor. The said doctor, the then C.M.O., is not examined to prove the contents of Ex.X1 and particularly, the entry said to have been made by him containing the alleged statement of the claimant that doctor was removed from service. He was very much available but no steps were taken by the appellant-insurer to examine him. Ex.X1 was produced through R.W.3-Smt.K.Nirmala, who was working as Record Assistant in the SVRR hospital, Tirupathi. Admittedly, he has no personal knowledge of the contents of Ex.X1 and she merely produced the accident register- Ex.X1 and she was examined only to show that Ex.X1 was produced from proper custody of the hospital authorities. The proper personnel who could have testified to the contents of Ex.X1 was Dr.Prasada Rao. In the absence of his evidence, the Tribunal has rightly held that no reliance can be placed on the said observation contained in Ex.X1 to the effect that P.W.1 sustained injuries due to negligent driving of his own vehicle. That apart, the police registered the First Information Report- Ex.A1 against the rider of the motor cycle and after due investigation filed charge sheet-Ex.A3 against A1. In the Criminal Case records, the motor cycle bearing No.TN20C.4995 was described as the crime vehicle. 10. R.W.2-Sub-Inspector of police, Vadamalapet police station and who was the investigating officer also testified that the crime vehicle involved in the accident was the motor cycle bearing No.TN20C.4995. The Tribunal has therefore recorded a finding that from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and R.W.2, it was clear that the identity of the offending vehicle as the motor cycle is duly established. In view of the evidence available on record, to the contra, the contention of the appellant that the motor cycle was not the crime vehicle involved in the accident, cannot be accepted. 11. Regarding the claim of compensation, the Tribunal relying upon the salary certificate-Ex.A6, has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.6000/- per month as Sales Officer of Prithvi Biotech India Private Limited, Bangalore and having regard to the age of the claimant, who was aged 35 years, applied the suitable multiplier ‘16’ and awarded a sum of Rs.2,88,000/- towards loss of income on account of the permanent disability which was stated to be 25% as per the medical evidence available on record. Similarly, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,49,389/- towards medical expenses duly covered by a bunch of 41 bills under Ex.A7. Having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained fracture of right leg he was initially taken to SVRRGG hospital, Tirupathi and later shifted to Apollo hospital, Chennai, where he underwent three major surgeries to the right leg which resulted in a permanent disability of 25% and in view of the length of hospitalization and nature of treatment undergone by him, the above amounts awarded by the Tribunal making up a total compensation of Rs.4,62,389/- is considered to be just and reasonable. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 13th August, 2020 Tsy