The High Court · 2025

Kamareddy (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim of first responde'nt herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,0()0/- with interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization and thereby to set aside the impugned order

2. Heard Mr.Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.l3ur1,a Balu Mahendra, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.

3. Tht: respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensirtion of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a nrotor vehicle accident that occurrcd or1 18.05.2013 According to the respondent/claimant, on that day, he came to KamaredCy to attend some personal works and at about 2.00 pm while he was on foot through station Road, one Bajal lJoxer Motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-01 -p-s447 (hereinafter -t 2 referred to as 'crime vehicle') driven in rash and negligent manner and dashed his motorcycle from his behind, due to which, he sustained fracture injuries. The respondent claims to have spent Rs.1,20,000/- towards medical exPenses. The respondent further contends that by the date of accident, he was aged 28 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a washer-man and running laundry shop.

4. T'he appellant, who is the owner of the motorcycle, filed counter opposing the claim and denying his liability to pay the compensation.

5. Basecl on the above pleadings, the 'l ribunal framed the following issues: i)Whethertheaccidenthappenedduetorashand negligentclrivingofthedriverofthemotclrcyclebearing No.AP-01-P-5447 ? ii)Whetherthepetitionerisentitledtocompensation, if so, from whom and what amount ? iii) 'fo what relief?

6. During enquiry, P'W'1 was examined and Exs'A1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the respondent/claimant' R'W'1 was examinedandnodocumentwasmarkedonhisbehalf. , i i I I i t I t

7. 'l'he -[ ribunal, after considering the oral and documentary 3 evidence available on record, has categorically held that the accident took place ctue to rash and negligent driving of the appellant and awarded coirrpensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The said motorcycle was not insured, as such, the liability was fixed on the owner of the said crime vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that despite the clear acquittal in the criminal case registered against the driver of the offending vehicle i.e., appellant and the delay in lodging the FIR, the Tribunal erroneously fastened the liability on the appellant, without properly appreciating the evidence of RW.1

9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the Tribunal on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly awarded the compensation amount and the appellant/owner of the crime vehicle has not made out any case for interference with the impugnr:d order passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. With regard to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant, a perusal of the record and Exs.AL to A3, which are the 4 ,. certified copies of FIR, Crime details and charge sheet, it is evidently clear that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle driven by the appellant, irr which the respondent sustained fracture injuries, which is also corroborated from the evidence of P.W.L and medical documents produced in Exs.A4 to A8. The medical reports produced by the claimant show that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

18.05.2013 and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and on the same day, subsequently he was shifted to Sri Maitfui Hospital, Nizamabad for better treatment, where he was admitted as inpatient and surgery was conducted on 21,.05.2073. 'fhereafter he was discharged from the hospital on 03.06.2A73. Later, basing on a complaint by the respondent hereiry FIR was lodged on 26.06.2013 with the concerned police.

17. T'he learned counsel for respondent contended that the respondent/injured was discharged from the hospital on 03.06.2013 with fractures to both bones of his right leg, and being an illiterate person with no one to look after him, he could not lodge the FIR immediately and only after his injuries had partially healed, the complaint was lodged, resulting in a delay of few days. Such delay, 5 under the circumstances, Cannot be treated as abnormal. Having regard to thLe above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered r:pinion that it is natural for a Persot-l suffering from fracture grieuous injuries to require medical assistance for some time, and therefore, the delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal to the case of the responcent anc{ on the other hand, the appellant has not controvertec. the said contentions of the respondent/injured by leading any evidence to show that the injured has suffered injuries other than ttnt of the accident.

72. [t is a well-settled principle that the delay in lodging the FIR in a criminal cerse, by itself, cannot be freated as a ground to discard the claim in moLor vehicle accident cases. Proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are summary in nature and the standard of proof required is based on preponderance of probahilities, unlike criminal cas3s vr,herc the charge must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, merely because there was delay in filing the FIR or because the appellant was acquitted in the related criminal case, the same does not ipso facto disentitle the respondent from seeking compensation before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is required to independen:ly assess the evidence on record and determine the occurrence of the accident and the liability arising there-from and 6 f. pass an appropriate award

13. tt is pertinent to note that the provision of clairning compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act urrdoubtedly is welfare legislation. It would not be the requirement of law to have the standard of evidence and proof strictly in terms of the provisions of the tndian Evidence Act. There is a great element of the preponderance of probability which has to be applied in some cases, rnore particularly, in fatal accident cases. Therefore, mere acquittal in accidental case is not a ground to exonerate the driver of the crime vehicle from tortuous liability and since offence is of a criminal nature, the guilt has to be established beyond reasotrable cloubt to convict the person charged. 'Iherefore, there is no merit on the said contention of the learned counsel for appellant and the contentions of the learned counsel for appellant are hereby rejected.

74. [n view of the above, in consictered <lpinion of this Court, the appellant though acquitted in a criminal case, cannot be escaped from the civil liability arising out of the motor vehicle accidents and the 't'ribunal was justified in awarding the just compensatiou. 'I'he 7 appellant feLilecl to make out any case warranting interference by this Court. The,appeal fails and same is liable to be dismissed

15. [n ther result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications if any pending shall stand closed. \ Sd/- M.JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII OFFICER itional District To 1

2. 3. 4. kvr/pr ?{AL _* "1pi+,,i6i !: :*: l i : : I I I I I I I { I \:, -tt::> ;.t *{ -1 o 5 tquff 1$18 HIGH COURT SCR,J DATED: 31t1OtZOzS JUDGMENT MACltlA.No.SO of 2022 DISMISSED @+T" (qt-t'a [ 348s l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO Between: Kodupaka Bhiksapathi, S/o. Poshetty, Aged about 33 years, occ: owner of Motor cycle Bearing No. AP 01P 5447 and Sub post Master, R/o. H.No.7-14l1, Tandur village, Nagireddypet Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND cH.Raju, chakali Nadipolla Raju, S/o. Balaiah, aged about 36 years, occ: washerman or Laundry, R/o.H.No.17-4s11, sadashivanagar village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Ord'er and decree made in M.V.O.P.No. 173 of 2014 dated 27-10-2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident ClaimS Tribunal -cum- lX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy. 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 Rapolu Bhaskar, Advocate for the Sole Appellant and of Sri SURYA BALU MAHENDRA, Advocate for the Sole Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER To

1. The tlhairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- lX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy.

2. Two tlD Copies kvr/pr SMc.. HIGH COURT scR,J DATED: 3111012025 I DECREE MACMA.No.50 of 2A22 DISMISISED 11l,>{}4,