HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.322 of 2008 Date: 17-6-2011 Between Ankireddipalle Ramanjaneyulu … Appellant/Petitioner/Claimant and M.Mohan and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.322 of 2008 Judgment: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 06-11-2007 passed in O.P.No.154 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimant mainly urging that the tribunal below erroneously dismissed the petition on the ground of delay in lodging the report but failed to consider the crucial document charge-sheet Ex.A-3. 2. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 3. Point:- The appellant herein is the claimant in O.P.No.154 of 2004. He filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 06-4-2003 at about 8.30 p.m., near Kamalapuram. According to the claimant that on 06-4-2003 while he was walking on the road the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP04U-3887 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and ran over his right leg resulting his right leg was amputated below the knee and he spent more than Rs.45,000/- towards treatment and transport and suffering from permanent disability and lost his earning capacity. 4. In proof of the same, except the injured himself as P.W.1 none were examined but he got marked the documents Exs.A-1 to A- 7. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 5. According to P.W.1, he sustained injuries in the road traffic accident. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1, Administrative Officer of the 2nd respondent gave evidence asserting that the petitioner sustained injuries by falling from a bullock-cart in the fields. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of First Information Report, which reads that the accident was occurred on 06-4-2003. The recitals therein read that it was lodged on 12-4-2003 at about 2.30 p.m. The petitioner laid the claim based on the wound certificate Ex.A-2. A perusal of Ex.A-2 discloses that the petitioner received injuries by accidental fall from the bullock-cart in the fields. It was also further recited that the petitioner was reported to have gone to the doctor. Ex.A-2 is the earliest information furnished by the injured immediately after the accident. The contents of Ex.A-2 differ with those of Ex.A-1 with regard to the nature of injuries. As Ex.A-2 clearly reads that the petitioner sustained the injuries due to the accidental fall from the bullock-cart, any amount of credence shall be given to this document. Moreover, the petitioner did not examine any independent witness to prove the alleged accident. The petitioner also did not examine any doctor in proof of his injuries. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the tribunal below. 6. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 17th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.322 of 2008 (P.D. Judgment) 17th June, 2011.