IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1108 of 2003 and 1559 of 2011 M.A.C.M.A.No.1108 of 2003 Between: Kuna Pushpa .. Appellant AND Paidipally Venkat Swamy and another .. Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.1559 of 2011 Between: United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager .. Appellant AND Kuna Dayanand Swamy and another .. Respondents COMMON JUDGMENT: As both the appeals involving the wife and husband arising out of the same accident involved common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of by this common order. The claim of the claimants in MVOP.Nos.1007 of 2000 and 1003 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal is that when they were travelling on their scooter AAO 3995 on 13-06-2000 at about 11.00 P.M., the auto No.AP 36 U 4465, driven rashly and negligently, hit the scooter near Bala Hanuman temple at Hanamkonda. The husband and wife claimed to have fallen on the road and sustained grievous and simple injuries after which the husband was treated at MGM Hospital, Warangal and then at Lalitha Hospital, Warangal, whereas the wife was treated at Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda. The wife filed MVOP.No.1007 of 2000 claiming a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the auto for the fractures and other grievous injuries received by her and the expenses for medicines, treatment and extra-nourishment, apart from permanent disability sustained by her. The husband also claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- in MVOP.No.1003 of 2000 in respect of the fractures and other grievous and simple injuries received by him, the medical expenses and extra nourishment, loss of salary and other heads of damages. In both the cases the owner of the auto remained ex parte, while the insurer contested the claims contending that the claim was false and there was no proof of the driving licence of the auto driver or valid permit or roadworthiness of the auto or the insurance coverage of the auto. In any view, the claim was contested as excessive. On such pleadings in both the claims, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation. In MVOP.No.1007 of 2000, the Tribunal examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 during the enquiry, whereas in MVOP. No.1003 of 2000, the Tribunal examined PW.1 and RW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9, Ex.B.1 and B.2. In the impugned award in MVOP.No.1007 of 2000, the Tribunal noted that the claimant admitted that she did not file any document to show that she took treatment in Jaya Hospital. The Tribunal also noted that the auto number was not mentioned by the claimant, who also did not know the name of the driver. The non- examination of the husband in that claim was also taken adverse note of and the relationship of the alleged auto driver with the claimants was also noted to have been admitted. The non- examination of any other eye-witness, the absence of any report from Jaya Hospital or MGM Hospital about the accident to the police, the absolute inconsistency between the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate and those claimed by the claimant, the inconsistencies about the consequences of the injuries, the abnormal delay in giving the FIR between 13-06-2000 and 19-07- 2000, the silence of the husband in the report about the admission of the wife in Jaya Hospital, the absence of any proof of treatment of the husband at MGM Hospital, the silence in the First Information Report about the name of the auto driver, the artificial surrender of the auto driver before the police after the delayed FIR and other circumstances made the Tribunal believe that the entire incident was collusively alleged and brought into existence. The Tribunal also noted the absence of any corroboration from the medical evidence and consequently, dismissed the claim in MVOP.No.1107 of 2000 with costs. However, in the impugned award in MVOP.No.1003 of 2000, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the injured PW.1 and his documents about the accident, while refusing to give any finding on the award passed in MVOP.No.1007 of 2000 in view of the pendency of the appeal before this Court against the same. The silence of the 1st respondent, who did not dispute the accident, the FIR and the charge sheet after investigation by the police, was considered to be corroborating PW.1. The Tribunal went on to calculate the compensation payable to the claimant-husband and opined grant of Rs.19,500/- towards grievous and simple injuries, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment, Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.22,000/- towards loss of salary to be just and adequate compensation to be paid to the claimant. Accordingly, it awarded a compensation at Rs.49,500/- with interest at 9% p.a. The claimant in MVOP.No.1007 of 2000 challenged the dismissal of her claim in MACMA.No.1108 of 2003 contending that the Tribunal went wrong in not believing the accident and presuming collusion. The oral and documentary evidence of the claimant could not have been disbelieved on technical grounds and any failure of the hospital authorities to inform the police cannot disentitle the claimant from claiming the just and adequate compensation. The insurer challenged the award in MVOP.No.1003 of 2000 in MACMA.No.1559 of 2011 contending that the silence of the authorities of MGM Hospital in not reporting to the police, the dismissal of MVOP.No.1007 of 2000 arising out of the same alleged accident, the unconvincing nature of the husband and wife taking treatment in different hospitals though involved in the same accident etc., should have been considered to reject the claim. The appellant claimed to have obtained permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the Tribunal in I.A.No.1017 of 2006 on 17-04-2007. Heard Sri A. Ravinder, learned counsel for the claimants in both the cases and Smt. Y. Aruna, learned counsel representing Sri K. Kishore Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the insurer in both the cases. The point for consideration is whether the claimants proved their entitlement to just and adequate compensation, on the allegations made by them, from the owner and insurer of the auto in question? The accident occurred allegedly on 13-06-2000 when the husband and wife were coming on a scooter. The husband was described to be a medical officer at Primary Health Centre, Chelpur and therefore, he must have been conversant with the procedure to be adopted by the victims or the doctors treating them in medico legal cases. Still the incident was not reported to the police till 19-07-2000 by the husband. Seelam Narayana, who was stated in the earlier version to be the person, who shifted the husband and wife to MGM Hospital for treatment, was not examined and the name of the private Hospital in which the wife was admitted was also not stated. The earliest version also did not state as to when the husband returned to Chelkur on being discharged from MGM Hospital and till what time the wife was undergoing treatment at the private hospital. The auto driver was not named or identified in the earliest version and the charge sheet is as though the auto driver himself surrendered to the police suddenly on 28-07-2000 admitting his guilt due to the involvement in the accident. The wound certificate of the wife issued by Jaya Hospital on requisition did not state as to when the road traffic accident happened or involving which vehicle or in what manner. As noted by the Tribunal in the impugned award, the injuries claimed in the wound certificate and by the wife in her evidence are not consistent and the charge sheet shows no reference to any explanation by the hospitals as to why the medico legal cases were not reported to the concerned police. The result of the criminal case filed against the auto driver is not known and the Tribunal had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the claimant in MVOP.No.1007 of 2003 in flesh and blood. None connected with either hospital was examined to explain the circumstances of not reporting to the police earlier or to prove the injuries sustained or the consequences that ensued to the wife or the husband. The auto driver being not named in the First Information Report notwithstanding the admission of the wife in her evidence about his being related to the husband is also inexplicable and though protection of innocent victims is the duty of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which should not resort to niceties and technicalities, the imperfection in the claims in both the cases are so deep-rooted as to vitiate the credibility of the entire claims. In the impugned award in MVOP.No.1003 of 2000, the absence of any evidence for the respondents 1 and 2 in this regard was taken adverse note of, but the credibility of the evidence of the husband as PW.1 was not examined in the light of different vitiating circumstances referred to above. Under the circumstances, the accident and the involvement of the alleged auto in the accident cannot be considered to be probablised though the husband and wife might have received some injuries in some other manner. If so, no liability could have been fastened to the insurer or the owner in either of the claims. While both the claims will, therefore, fail, insofar as MVOP.No.1003 of 2000 is concerned, the affidavit in MACMAMP. No.2644 of 2008 shows that the claimant had filed EP.No.24 of 2008 prior to filing of that appeal and if any amounts were paid by the insurer to the claimant in that Execution Petition, they can be directed to be recovered from the owner of the auto without the necessity of taking recourse to any separate suit or other legal proceedings. In the result, MACMA.No.1108 of 2003 is dismissed without costs and MACMA.No.1559 of 2011 is allowed without costs and the award dated 10-08-2007 in MVOP.No.1003 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, is set aside and MVOP.No.1003 of 2003 is dismissed without costs. If any amounts were paid in E.P.No.24 of 2008 to the claimant by the insurer, the insurer is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle without the necessity of taking recourse to any separate suit or other legal proceedings. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 02-08-2011 Ksn