IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3248 of 2003 Between: Kagithala Ramulu .. Appellant AND Mohd. Zaheeruddin & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3248 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.1089 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Warangal, dated 08.05.2003. 2. The appellant filed the claim petition claiming that when he was going on his scooter No.AP 36B 635 on 22.08.1999, lorry No.AP0 4502, driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent to the claim came opposite being driven rashly and negligently and dashed the scooter. The appellant claimed to have suffered severe injuries and the pillion rider to have died in the accident. The appellant claimed to have been treated as an inpatient from 22.08.1999 to 02.10.1999 for the multiple fractures of the right hand and left leg and other injuries and hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. 3. While the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of all his allegations while contending that the compensation claimed was excessive. 4. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9 during the enquiry. 5. It rendered the impugned award dismissing the claim without costs primarily concluding that the evidence was not sufficient to hold that the appellant was the person who received the injuries in the motor accident. 6. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this appeal contending that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, at Secunderabad, immediately after the accident by the police and on discharge from the said hospital, he was treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. He is called as K. Ramulu alias Vamshi and he was examined as P.W.2 in O.P.No.931 Of 1999, filed by the parents, brother and sisters of Srinivas, the pillion rider on the scooter who died in the accident. The Tribunal should have noted that the appellant also does painting work in the name of Vamshi Arts due to which he is also called as Vamshi and the police had in fact prosecuted the lorry driver in Crime No.63 of 1999 of Yadagirigutta Police Station and the appellant was cited as L.W.2 in the charge sheet. Therefore, the appellant, while seeking permission to file certified copies of the judgment and decree in O.P.No.931 of 1999 and charge sheet in Crime No.63 of 1999, etc., as additional material papers, desired the impugned award to be reversed. 7. Heard Sri A. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned standing counsel for the third respondent/insurer. None appeared for respondents 1 and 2 before this Court also. 8. The point for consideration is about the identity of the appellant as the person who received injuries in the accident in question and his entitlement to compensation. 9. The Tribunal in the impugned award adversely commented upon the appellant not filing a copy of the charge sheet filed by the police against the lorry driver and also about the medical certificate issued by the doctor not mentioning the case as a medico legal case. The Tribunal also found some discrepancy as to whether the appellant was treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, or Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A-2-Hospital Treatment Certificate were noted to be referring to Vamshi and correlation between the name mentioned as Ramulu or as Ramu or as Vamshi in different documents was considered by the Tribunal to be lacking leading to negativing the claim. 10. However, the appellant claims that he was cited as L.W.2 in the charge sheet filed by the police in Crime No.63 of 1999 of Yadagirigutta Police Station and expressed his readiness to file the copy of the charge sheet. The appellant also explained the reference to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, and M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, stating that he was first admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, by the police and after discharge from that hospital, he took treatment at M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal. He further stated that he was examined as P.W.2 in O.P.No.931 of 1999 filed by the dependents of Srinivas, the pillion rider, on the scooter at the time of the accident and it may be noted that even ever since the original claim, it was specifically stated that the pillion rider on the scooter died in the accident. The judgment and award in O.P.No.931 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Warangal, was stated by the appellant to be the in acceptance of the claims and he desires to have the judgment and decree proved before the Tribunal. The appellant basically desires that he should have an opportunity to establish that he is called as Ramulu or Ramu or Vamshi in the alternative and he also explained his being called as Vamshi with reference to his occupation as a Painter in the name of Vamshi Arts. 11. All these aspects need to be proved through relevant oral and documentary evidence and it is evident from the impugned award that the Tribunal was unhappy with the absence of any acceptable evidence to explain that the appellant was being called as Ramulu or Ramu or Vamshi. 12. The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are always considered to be beneficial provisions intended to come to the rescue of the victims of motor accidents to offset the adverse consequences of the injuries they suffered during such accidents and in deciding such claims, a strictly technical view cannot be adopted. As procedural provisions are intended to be the handmaids of justice and as the merits of the claims are better decided on a comprehensive adjudication, but not on technicalities, this appears to be a fit case for remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for an opportunity to the appellant to produce further evidence in this regard. Even the additional material papers sought to be produced in this appeal by the appellant need to be proved through such evidence with an opportunity to the respondent to cross-examine the witnesses with reference to such documents. Therefore, remitting the matter back for that purpose alone will be in the interest of justice. 13. Further, as it was the failure of the appellant to produce adequate and satisfactory evidence to establish his identity, more particularly, his being called as Ramulu and also as Vamshi that led to the dismissal of the claim before the Tribunal and then the consequential pendency of this appeal for so long, the respondents should not be disadvantaged by having to be liable to pay interest on any compensation that may be arrived at in case of the appellant’s success, for the entire period and for the default of the appellant, he has to suffer the consequence of losing any right to interest for the period of the pendency of the appeal. 14. Accordingly, the award in M.V.O.P.No.1089 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Warangal, dated 08.05.2003, is set aside and M.V.O.P.No.1089 of 1999 is remitted back to the said Tribunal for affording an opportunity to the appellant to produce such further oral and documentary evidence which the appellant may desire to produce in this regard and also to the respondents to produce their oral and documentary evidence in reply and to determine the claim on merits in accordance with law after such reasonable opportunity to both parties. The appellant in the event of his being found entitled to compensation from the respondents or any of them will not be entitled to any interest on such quantum of compensation from the date of filing of the appeal i.e., 04.09.2003 till today. 15. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 1st February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3248 of 2003 Date: 1st February, 2011 KL