THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3895 of 2002 JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order, dated 05.08.2002, passed in O.P.No.1081 of 1999 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the appellant-injured preferred this appeal urging that the order and decree passed by the lower Court is arbitrary, illegal, contrary to law and against the weight of evidence and the lower Court erred in holding that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle bearing No.ABT-2715. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent- insurer urged that the finding of the lower Court that the appellant was in drunken state at the time of the accident and was responsible for the accident is correct and if that be the case, the injured is not entitled for any compensation and he supported the order of the lower Court. Now, the point for consideration is whether the order of the lower Court is sustainable and the appellant is entitled for any compensation. The parties have not disputed the manner in which the accident occurred. The only dispute is that the accident was occurred solely due to rash and negligent driving of the injured himself under intoxication as he consumed half bottle of liquor prior to the accident. The lower Court placed reliance on the statement given by the injured before the police soon after the accident. P.W.1-injured, during the course of cross-examination, stated that he did not give any statement to the police that he consumed half bottle of alcohol prior to the accident. Even for argument sake, concerning that the injured consumed alcohol at the time of accident, the lower Court has to see whether he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the alleged accident. Moreover, an ordinary prudent man will not invite the accident at his peril. Due to his mis-fortune, he met with an accident and sustained injuries. The finding of the criminal Court against the driver of the offending vehicle is not binding on the lower Court to give any adverse verdict against the claim of the victims in motor accident cases. Soon after the accident, police filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle observing that he was responsible for the accident. For so many reasons, the said criminal case ended in acquittal. That ipso facto does not give any ground for adjudication of the matter against the injured concerned. The lower Court ought to have seen the charge sheet- Ex.A2, which was filed after thorough investigation by the police. Therefore, viewed from any angle and on cumulative reading of the evidence of the injured and the witnesses, it clearly establishes that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. In the above facts and circumstances, the finding of the lower Court that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the injured cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination in view of the charge sheet-Ex. A2, which was prepared by the police after thorough investigation. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant, the lower Court discussed at length the medical evidence. The claim of the appellant is for Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. The injured while examining himself as P.W.1 examined P.W.3-Dr. B.S.Reddy. Through P.W.3, Exs.A4 to A10 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. A perusal of Exs.A3, A4, A6, A8 and A10 would show that the injured sustained fracture to his right leg and some other injuries on account of the accident. P.W.3, the Medical Officer also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 as per Ex.X1-case sheet. The lower Court granted a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards pain and suffering to the said fracture of right leg. In my considered view, the aforesaid granting of compensation is just and reasonable, which needs no interference. The lower Court also granted a sum of Rs.5,000/-towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000/- towards transport to hospital, Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,000/-towards damages to his clothing. The amounts granted under different heads by the lower Court are quite just and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I see no reason to differ with the finding of the lower Court on that score. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J Date: .01.2011 sj The lower Court while dismissing the O.P. observed that in the event of the case of the petitioner is accepted relating to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, it would be just and reasonable to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/-towards pain and suffering to the said fracture of right leg, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2,000/-towards transport to hospital, Rs.5,000/-towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,000/-towards damages to his clothing. In total, the compensation comes to Rs.38,000/-. Since it is established that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant and that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, in my considered view that the quantum of amount determined under different heads by the lower Court is quite just and reasonable and would meet the ends of justice. Hence, I see no reason to differ with the finding of the lower Court on that score. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.38,000/-with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. No order as to costs. ________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J Date: 04.02.2011 sj