The High Court · 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.3 572 0F 20oa DATED THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: Khadar S/o Ctrand Paslra (rrt Kutubuddin. Sri K. Laxman S/o. Sri liokva Naik and another And JUDGMENT: . Appellant Respondents This Mcmoranrium o[ Civil Mrscellaneous Appeal is hled under Section 173 of rhc Moror Vehicles Act, 19gg (for short, ,the MV Acr. 1988') assailing rhe Au.ard passed bv the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (f ,{cldl. District Judge) at Mahabubnagar, in O.P.No 308 ol 2OO2 claLect 18.()2.2006.

2. Appellant is the peritioner and respondents are the respondents in ().P. N,.r.3O8 of 2OO2.

3. Appcllan t-petrtioner has filed claim petition under Section I er6 ol the M.V. Act, lggg claiming compensation of Rs. I ,00,000/ - on accounr of the injuries sustained by him in a rnotor vehicle accident. RRI\,1R.J MACMA.No.3572 OF 20Ou 2 It is stated in O.P. that on 22 04 '2OO4 at about 11'30 P'M 4. the appellant-petitioner was in DCM Van bearing No AP-22-T- 52 I 8, going to Pentlavelli village to bring chicken along u'ith labor from Mahabubnagar and he was working in Excellent Chicken Centre at Mahabubnagar. While the vehicle reached the limits of sustained multiPlc Peddamuddunoorvillage,itwasdriveninarashandnegligent manner by the Driver, who applied sudden brakes at 11 30 P M' the backside of the The appellant- petitioner, u'ho '*'as sittlng ln Van, fell off from the body of the Van and injuries i.e., fore-head, temple, jau's and abdomen etc Due to the said injuries, his upper teeth were dislocated and he was shifted to Nagarkurnool Civil Hospital and from there he was shifted to the Headquarters hospital, Mahabubnagar for better treatment' He has spent an amount of Rs.2O,O0O/ - for his treatment Due to the injuries the appellant-petitioner has lost his teeth and sustained permanent disability. He was earning Rs'2'5O0/- per month and aged about 14 1'ears at the time of the accident and prayed to allo$' the O.P.

5. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the learned Tribunal- Respondent No 2 hled counter and denied the age, income and the manner in u'hich the accident has taken place. I BRMR,J MACMA. No.3572 OF 2008 3

6. Learned Tnblrnal has framed the follou,ing issues 7 15 hours at Pedda Muddunoor village limits on the road lcading from Nagarkurnool to Achampct, due to rash and ncgligent driving of DCM Van beaiing No.Ap_ 22lT-5218 by its drir,er and lvhether it res-ulted in c;rusing the rnjuries to the petitioner? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If iii.To u,hat relie I-? s(). to tvhat amount, arld from u,hom?

7. Appcllant-pctitioner is examincd as pW_ 1 and also pW-2_ Mr.Khader and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. The Assistant Administrative ofl-icer of respondent No.2 is examirled as Rw- I and got markcd Exs.B1 and 82.

8. Learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties couplecl with the documents has dismissed the O.p. filed by thc appellant-pctitioner holding that the appcllant failcd to prove thc r-ash and ncgligcnt driving of the driver of thc crimc vehicle, so also he failed to prove that he is entitled for compensation.

9. Learncd counsel for the appcllant submits that the lcarned Tribunal erred in not taking into consideration the evidence adduced b,, the appellanr ancl pW-2 coupled with exhibits marked thereon in propcr perspectivc and errcd in dismissing the O.p. The learncd Tribunal failed to notice that the appellarrt fell down frory BRMR,J MACMA. No.3572 OF 2OOa 4 the Van only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van and prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondcnt No. I remained ex parte before the learned Tribunal and he is not necessary party to the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case on hand in right perspective and rightly dismissed the O.P. filed by the appellant-petitioner holding that he lailed to prove the accident and also failed to prove that he is entitled for compensation. Hence, no intcrference is callcd for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Heard both sides and perused the record.

13. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the Award passed by the Tribunal suffers from any perversity or illegality, if so, does it requires interference of this Court?

14. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is certified copy of Wound Certifica[e, Ex.A3 is certihed copy of charge sheet, Ex.A4 are bills, Ex.A5 is C.T. Scan brain without contrast dated 25-04.2OO2, Ex.A6 is the copy of O.P. Chit, Ex AT is copy of driving license, Ex.A8 is the copy of R.C., Exs.A9 and 81 are the copy of lhe Insurance Policr', Ex.A 1O is Form PPC (Xerox copy) and Ex.B2 5 is the investigaIion rr'po rL.

15. In so lar as t}]e accldent is concerned appellan t-petitioner has lilcd his affidavit. rvhrch is in consonance rvi[h his claim petition. In his crcss examinatioir he contrzrdictecl his carlier version stating that he u,as in thc cabin o[ the Van but not on [he top ol the body. Thc Claim Petition filed by the appellant speaks that he rvas sitting in the back side of the Van and due to sudden brakcs he lell dou,'n from the same. L6. The learned Tribunal has laken into consideration Ex.B2- investigation reporl coupled u'ith Ex.A3-chargc sheet and rightly arrived at a r:onclusion that the appellan t- petition er has not proved the accident and the rcasoning of the learned Tribunal at paragraph Nos. 1 1 ard 12 is sufficre nt to come to a conclusion that the appellant petitioner has not proved thc accident. L7. [n so lar as thc quantum of compcnsation is concerned, the lcarned Tribunal has considered the clecisron of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Bomnrithi Subbavarnma and olhersl and rightly held that offending Van is a goods carrying vehicle and does not cover gratr,ritous passengcr travelling in goods vehicle and passed a ' rrr (1005) D\{c.+23 (sc) BRMR,J MACMA.No.3572 OF 2OO8 6 reasoned order vide paragraph No. 16 of the Award that appellant- petitioner is not entitled for any compensation. 18, The appellant-petitioner gave inconsistent versions in the cross-examination, failed to prove the accident and also failed to prove that he \^,as entitled for compensation.

19. The reasoning ol the learned Tribunal is proper and has passed a reasoned order in dismissing the O.p. filed by the appellant-petitioner. No interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismisseci and is accordingly dismissed.

20. Accordingly, MACMA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. In[erim order/ s if any shall stand vacated. Miscellaneous petition/ s shall stand closed. Sd/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY SISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY' ECTION OFFICER To, Mahabubnagar.(with records if any) '1 . The l\ilotor Accident Claims Tribunal (l Addl' 2 i;;; cc t;-SCilA suoersr,an Re6bv, Advocate [oPUCl e. il; ca i6 sRi t'tusurairh Golla, Adrvocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies District Judge) at o HIGH COURT DATED 1st12tZO2i JUDGTMENT MACMA No.357 2 of 2OO8 c.{ ATE I F ( ) rt t$s ls I PzP-s 1 r.t p 6 e Ai * a ) o {,) M A,C IV.A IS DISI\,,IISSED "2l" o:hz leL IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B,R.IV1ADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL N/ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 3572 OF 2OO8 Between Khadar, Minor rep by next friend Smt.Shaha.jadi Begum or Ameenabee Wo.late chand Pasha, Aged 42 Years, Household R/o.H.No.7-1-14l1, New Prem Nagar, Ivlahabubnagar. ...Appellant AND

1. Sri K.Laxman, S/o.Sri Kokya Naik Owner of DCM Van Bearing No.AP 227 5218 R/o.Srimallakutcha Thanda, Chinnadarpalli Village, Hanwada Mandal,

2. The Divisional Manager, New lndia Assurance Company Ltd. The Divisional Manager, New lndia Assurance Company Lld.,2-2-218D, Opp. Modern High School, ...Respondents Appeal u/sec. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against [he order and decree in O.P.No 308 of 2002 dated 1810212006 on the file of the Court of the l\,'lotor Accident Claims Tribunal (l Addl. District Judge) at Mahabubnagar. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.Sudershan Reddy, Advocate of appellant and of Sri Nasaraiah Golla, Advocate for the respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed; 2 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal; Sd/- [/, JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I Q TION OFFICER ,TRUE COPY// To, The lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal (l Addl. District Judge) at lvlahabubnagar.(with records if any) 2 Two CD Copies d HIGH COURT DArED 15l1212025 DECREE MAC[/A.No 3572 of 2OOB IHE SI /tl oR Y 1B Q,I|): ',' ,/z o') '( * IV.A.C, M.A, IS DISN/ISSED