1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant against the Order and Decree dated 01.06.2012 in O.P.No.933/2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’) passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge (FTC) at Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimant seeking compensation, was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from record are that the appellant/claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 25.06.2005. On 25.06.2005 while the claimant was standing at Jankampet Bus stand on left side of his road, a Tata Vehicle bearing registration No. AP 25 U 1503 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) coming from Nizamabad side in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed and lost control over the vehicle dashed against the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture of skull, fracture of basal frontal contusions, fracture of parieto occipital. The claimant was taken to Sai Vani Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he took treatment as inpatient and spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. The claimant, who was alleged to have 46 years, was hale and healthy and drawing Rs.15,000/- per month as paid Secretary in PACS, Varshakonda, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District. The claimant pleaded that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the insured and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 was set exparte and whereas the respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition including the age, earnings, health condition of the claimant at the time of the accident. It was further contended that the insurance policy was not subsisting and that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. It was further contended that there was a delay of 10 days in lodging complaint to the Police and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

5. Based on the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal has framed three issues. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A14 and Ex.C1 on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of respondent No.2, except marking the copy of the insurance policy under Ex.B1, there is no other adduced.

FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the accident in question resulting injuries. Aggrieved thereby the claimant preferred the present Appeal to set aside the impugned order and award just and reasonable compensation.

7. Heard Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

8. On considering the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination in the present appeal is:

               “Whether the appellant/claimant made out any valid and sustainable grounds to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal and award just and reasonable compensation?”

ANALYSIS:

9. One of the grounds on which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of the claimant is that there was delay of 10 days in lodging complaint to the concerned police.

10. It is pertinent to note that as per Ex.A1 FIR, the accident alleged to have occurred on 25.06.2005 and whereas Ex.A1 was lodged on 04.07.2005. Thus, admittedly there was a delay of 9 days in lodging the complaint. The learned Tribunal categorically observed in the impugned order that column No.8 of FIR shows that since the claimant was admitted in the hospital delay is caused. The learned Tribunal opined that the claimant failed to assigned the reasons for the delay in lodging FIR in the affidavit filed in support of the claim petition. Once, the claimant had produced sufficient documentary evidence in the form of Ex.A1 explaining the reasons for the delay in lodging EX.A1-FIR, the learned Tribunal ought not to have suspected the reason assigned by the claimant on the ground that the reasons assigned in the FIR were not mentioned in the claim petition. Even otherwise, it is settled law that mere delay in lodging complaint is not fatal to criminal case or even a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, until and unless the reasons are not assigned for the alleged delay. In this connection, the learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance upon the decision in Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others ((2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693) wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed as under:

               “The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.”

11. Further reliance was placed on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sanju Bai Prajapati and others v. New India Assurance Company Limited and others ((2025) 9 Supreme Court Cases 414), wherein it was observed that mere fact that the eyewitness did not approach the police cannot be a reason to find the delay in FIR to be suspicious.

12. A perusal of the impugned order, more particularly, while answering issue No.1, the learned Tribunal observed that despite giving suggestion to PW1/claimant disputing the accident, the claimant failed to examine any other witness to prove the alleged accident. It appears that the learned Tribunal insisted for an eyewitness to be examined to establish the accident. The learned Tribunal further observed in the impugned order that the investigating officer failed to examine any independent witness to the alleged accident and the only witnesses examined by the investigating officer were brother of the claimant and son of the brother of the claimant, who are interested witnesses. The learned Tribunal further observed in the impugned order that the oral evidence of PW2 was supported by the endorsement made in Ex.C1 case sheet. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.C1, PW2 alleged to have made an endorsement that the claimant sustained injuries due to fall in the ditch near his house on 25.06.2005 at 5.00 PM. But it is pertinent to note that in the second sheet of the very same case sheet under Ex.C1 it was mentioned that the claimant sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 25.06.2005 at 7.00 PM. Thus, the endorsement made by PW2 under Ex.C1 cannot, by itself, be made a ground to reject the claim petition. It is also pertinent to look at Ex.A3 injury certificate dated 25.07.2005 issued by Sai Vani Hospital. As per Ex.A3 the claimant got injured in the road traffic accident but not by falling into a ditch.

13. Such an approach, in the opinion of this Court, is not legally sustainable. Proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are welfareoriented and beneficial in nature. The learned Tribunal is required to determine the claim on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities and not on the strict standards of proof applicable to criminal trials. Once the accident and the injuries are otherwise supported by contemporaneous medical records and other documentary evidence, non-examination of eyewitness, cannot, by itself, be a ground to discard the claim or doubt the injuries suffered by the claimant, more particularly, when the contemporaneous police records and medical evidence consistently establish that the claimant suffered injuries in the accident. It is settled law that charge sheet and FIR are sufficient evidence to prove the negligence, as these type of cases are decided on the "preponderance of probabilities," but not "beyond reasonable doubt".

14. Further, strict rules of evidence as applicable in a criminal trial are not attracted to proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. In N.K.V. BROS. (P) LTD. v. M. Karumai Ammal and others ((1980) 3 Supreme Court Cases 457) the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:

               “The plea that the criminal case had ended in acquittal and that, therefore, the civil suit must follow suit, was rejected and rightly. The requirement of culpable rashness under section 304A I.P.C. is more drastic than negligence sufficient under the law of tort to create liability. The quantum of compensation was moderately fixed and although there was, perhaps a case for enhancement, the High Court dismissed the cross-claims also. Being questions of fact, we are obviously unwilling to re-open the holdings on culpability and compensation.

               Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, specially when truck and bus drivers operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts, as has been observed by us earlier in other cases, to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Accidents Tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here or some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable. The court should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes.”

15. The above view was reiterated by the Honourable Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited ((2018) 5 SCC 656), wherein it was held that the standard of proof in motor accident claims is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held as follows:

               “Suffice it to observe that the exposition in the judgments already adverted to by us, filing of charge sheet against respondent No.2 prima facie points towards his complicity in driving the vehicle negligently and rashly. Further, even when the accused were to be acquitted in the criminal case, this Court opined that the same may be of no effect on the assessment of the liability required in respect of motor accident cases by the Tribunal.”

16. Similarly, in Sunita and others v. Rajasthan State Board Transport Corporation and others ((2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 486) the Honourable Supreme Court while re-affirming the principles referred above observed as under:

               “It is thus well settled that in motor accident claim cases, once the foundational fact, namely, the actual occurrence of the accident, has been established, then the Tribunal’s role would be to calculate the quantum of just compensation if the accident had taken place by reason of negligence of the driver of a motor vehicle and, while doing so, the Tribunal would not be strictly bound by the pleadings of the parties. Notably, while deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.”

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it can be held that the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by assuming that the claim petition filed by the claimant is a criminal case by finding fault with the claimant for non examination of an eyewitness to establish the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant. It is apposite to point out that despite the complete lack of evidence adduced on behalf of respondent No. 2, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, more particularly when the petition was filed under the benevolent, victim-centric provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act enacted for those who suffer death and grievous injuries.

18. Now coming to the quantum of quantum of compensation, though the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal computed the compensation and observed in the impugned order that the claimant is entitled to claim only Rs.1,33,000/-, which is appearing to be meager. Though the claimant pleaded that he had suffered grievous injuries fracture of skull, fracture of basal frontal contusions, fracture of parieto occipital, Ex.A3 injury certificate discloses that the claimant suffered one grievous (fracture) injury and one simple injury. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs.3,000/- towards simple injury, which are appearing to be meager. Considering the nature of the injuries and the year of the accident, this Court is inclined to award Rs.25,000/- towards both the injuries. That apart, Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferance.

19. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal failed to award any amount under the heads ‘loss of earnings’, ‘extra nourishment’, ‘transportation expenses’, and ‘attendant charges’.

20. Since the claimant suffered grievous injuries, he requires an attendant to discharge his day to day activities during the bed ridden period. Moreover, the claimant would have spent considerable amount towards transportation for visiting different hospitals and laboratories. Therefore, this Court in inclined to award Rs.5,000/- towards ‘transportation’ and Rs.6,000/- towards ‘attendant charges’.

21. Now coming to the hospital and medical expenses incurred by the claimant, though the learned Tribunal observed in the impugned order that the medical advance slip and cash bills under Exs.A4 and A5 comes to Rs.2,52,749/-, the same appears to be exaggerated and thus, awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It is the specific case of the claimant that he incurred Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. In this regard, the claimant also placed reliance upon Ex.A6 diet sheet. It is surprising to note that despite filing medical bills and advance cash bills to the extent of Rs.2,52,749/-, the learned Tribunal failed to award Rs.1,50,000/- as claimed by the claimant. By considering the documentary evidence under Exs.A4 to A6 and also the nature of treatment undergone by the claimant and also keeping in view of the fact that the claimant requires nutritious food and vitamin supplements to recovery quickly from his injuries, this Court is inclined to award Rs.1,50,000/- towards ‘hospital, medical and extra-nourishment expenses’.

22. Now coming to the loss of earnings, it is obvious that during bedridden period, it is impossible for a person, who had suffered grievous injuries, to attend his occupation. The claimant was alleged to be around 46 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as Paid Secretary in PACS, Varshakonda, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District apart from doing agriculture. However, no documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimant to establish his source of income. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to assess the salary of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month in terms of Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company (AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2951). As per Ex.C1, the claimant took treatment as inpatient in Sai Vani Hospital for one month and immediately after his discharge from the hospital, he may not be in a position to attend to his avocation. Considering the nature of the treatment obtained by the claimant and the nature of injuries suffered by him, this Court is inclined to award Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- x 3 months) towards ‘loss of earnings during bedridden period’.

23. Thus, in all, the claimant isentitled for compensation of Rs.2,19,500/- under different heads, which is detailed as under: