The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This appeat is filed by the claim petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which arises out of an award passed by the Ch.airman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XXW Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short,'the Tribunal') in MVOP.No. 2O3 of 2015 dated 05.11.2O21.

2.1. Appellants - petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (M.V.Act) and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 read $rith Section 163-8 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.l5,0O,OO0/- from respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on account of ttre death of P.tokesh in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 02.12.2014.

2.2. Appellant No. l-petitioner No.l is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of I,ate P.Lokesh.

3. On O2.72.')-Ol4 at about O9.OO hours, P.l,okesh was proceeding on scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362 from Hayatnagar to Tormr, when he reached near Balreddy Poultry farms at that time one Hero Honda Passion motor Cycle bearing No.Ap-29-BU- 2000 qame in ra.sh and negligent manner with high speed and BRMR, J MACMA.No 114 of 2!22 dashed him, due to which he fell down on the road and susta.ined head injury, multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 03.12.2O14. The deceased was working as granite stone cutter and earning Rs.12,O00/- per month and was aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants have suffered mental agony and lost his love and alfection. On tJle complaint, Police Station Hayatnagar registered a case in Crime No.968 of 2014 under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of the Hero Honda Passion motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000.

4.1 Respondent No.l - owner of the crime vehicle filed counter, denied the accident and further contended that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the driver possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence he is not liabte to pay the compensation.

4.2 Respondent No.2-insurance company liled counter denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the rider of the crime vehicle and petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary parties i.e, owner and insurer of scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362. It further contended that the driver of .-,, 2 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l 14 of 2022 ttre crime vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date

of accident. In lie FIR offending motor vehicle number was not mentioned, whi:h stated as unknown vehicle driven by one Raghavender Rer:dy, who caused the accident. In the charge sheet and in the claim petition, the offending driver name is mentioned as K.Jaganmohan Reddy and claim made by the appellants- petitioners is excessive and exorbitant.

4.3 Respondent No.3-driver filed counter and denied tl.e averments of ttre claim petition. Criminal case is pending against him at Hayatnagar Police Station, he did not drive the vehicle in rash and neglige nt manner and there is no necessity to implead him as a partl/ to the case, he is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. The Tribuna,l has framed the following issues: 1) Whetler ttte deceased P.Lokesh died on 03.12.2014 in a road accident occurred due to ttre rash and negtigent driving of the rider of Crime Vehicle Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU- 2000? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much anrl from whom? 3| To what relieP

6.1 Appellant No. 1 was examined as PWl, got examined PW2- S.Suresh, PW.3-P.Krishna, PW4-P.Venkatesh and pws- K.Venkatesh an(i got marked Exs.Al to AT. I-egal manager of \ BRMR, J MACMA.No.I l4 o{ 2022 respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.Bl- Insurance Policy.

6.2 Respondent Nos.l and 3 did not chose to lead evidence.

7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the parties and perusing the documents, dismissed the claim petition hled by the appellants-petitioners holding that they failed to prove the accident.

8. learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners submits that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of PW2 and PW5, who are the eye-witness to the accident, in the charge sheet their names were not mentioned and the testimony of the witnesses is not rebutted and the driver who was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the O.P has not chosen to enter into the witness box to contradict the evidence of PW2 and PW5. Mere non- mentioning the names of PW2 and PW5 in the charge sheet as eye witnesses cannot be a ground to disbelieve their evidence. In Exs.A4, A5 and A6 crime vehicle number and driver name is mentioned. The Tribunal failed to consider that due to the accident, the deceased died and relied on the decisions in the case of Janabai Vs. M/s. I.C.I.C.I Lambord Insurance Company Ltd.,t (ii) Kuncham Lavanya and Ors Vs. Bajaj Allianz General I4surance ' 1zozzl ro scc srz 5124 BRMR, J MA(:IiA.No.1 14 of 2022 Co.Ltd. & Anr.2 ririi) Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Harbans Kaur and Others3 and (iv) Repaka Rajya Laxmi and Others Vs. Poldasari Komuraia,h and () thersa

9. Notice to rr:spondent Nos. 1 and 3 were served in the appeal but they failed tc, appear.

10. karned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased P.lokesh died in road accident on 03.1:1.2O14 due to the rash and negligent clriving of the motor rycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2OOO, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and no interference is called for.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.

12. Now the point for consideration is: whether the appellants have made out any case to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.2O3 of 2015, dated O5.11.2O2 1?

13. Appellants-petitioners have originally frled OP against _ respondent Nos. I and 2 only and ttrereafter they have impleaded respondent No.3 as per the orders of the Tribunal in tA No.658/2O16 datt:d 04. 10.2016. 2 3 4 2025 ACJ 467 1983 ACJ I l0 2OO8 (3) ALD 80 (DB) \ 6124 BRMR, J MACMA-No.l 14 of2022

14. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of PWl to PW3 and the evidence of RWI and posted the matter for arguments on

28.O2.2O2O. The Tribunal after going through the record found that issues were not framed, heard the counsels on record and framed the issues and adjourned the case to O4.O3.202O for leading additional evidence if any ald for arguments. Thereafter the appellants-petitioners have examined PW4 and PW5 and orders came to be passed thereon dismissing the OP on O5.11.2021.

15. The reasons given by tJ'e Tribunal for dismissing the OP are at para Nos.15, 18 and 2O, which reads as under: "Para No.15...... On bare perusal of Ex.Al FlR/complaint and Ex-A2 Inquest panchanama it is evident that there is no description of the offending motorcycle is found alrd the name of Respondent No.3 is also not mentioned but t.t.e narne of one Raghavender Reddy is mentioned. The respondent No.2 contends that one unknown motorcycle driven by Raghavender Reddy hit the deceased not t}Ie offending motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2OOO. That the motorcycle driven by Raghavender Reddy had no Insurance coverage and he was not possessing driving licence, tlerefore the Respondent no.3 and the o{Iending motorcycle AP-29-BU-2O0O are falsely implicated to get insurance claim for the petitioners with the help of ttre Police. This contention draws corroboration from tl:e admissions of the witnesses and also the Ex.Al PIR /complaint and Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama, in thos€ documents there is mention of the name of one Raghavender Reddy but not tLe name of Respondent no.3 i.e., K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, as driver of the offending motorcycle. The cross examination evidence of all the witnesses and the Ex.Al FIR /complaint and Ex-A2 Inquest panchanama are also supporting the contention of the respondent No2. The "4, BRMR, .; MA(il\tA-No.l 14 of 2022 FlR/complaint and Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama a].e fi]ed before magisEate on 7-12-2O14 whereas the other documents Ex.A3 PME is no report, Ex.A4 scene of offence panchanma are filed atong with Ex.A6 charg: sheet later on before the concerned Magistrate. Therefore the:l are containing tJle name of respondent no.3 in those documents. l'here is no ewidence produced by the petitroners to support their rontention that how the name of respondenl. no,3 was mentioned irr the subsequent documents i.e., Scene o[ offence (Ex.A4), M\4 r',:port (Ex.As) charge sheet (Ex.A6). ParaNo.18.... It is also a fact to be noted that the owner of the offending molrr cycle is contesting the case as respondenl No.1 but he was not eramined by the petitioner to prove their case. The non examination rf Respondent No.l is also fatal to the case of petitioners. Para No.20. [n ttre evidence allidavit of PW4 and PW5, it is mentioned tl-.;rt the accused driver wrongly informed his name as Raghavender Reddy instead of K. Jaganmohan Reddy R/o Koheda. The petitione-s did not examine the investigation o(fir:er of the criminal cas,l to explain and prove irr what circumstances the motorcycle rirler's name is changed from Raghavender Reddy to K. Jaganmohan Reddy in the charge sheet and other documents. The fact of changing the name of driver of Motor cycle is averred in the chief allidavil.s of PW4 and PWS. In the evidence which is produced by petitioners after hearing the arguments, the petitioners changed and these fircts are revealed by the petitioners by producing additional evidence of PW4 and 5 and on reopening the petitioners evidence by filling the gaps. As per record, ttre cross examrnation of PWS 1,2,4 r,nd 5, the FIR Ex.Al and Ex.A2 - inquest panchanama are supportirrg ttre contention of the respondent no.2, thgt the name of responderr: no-3 and the offending motorcycle AP-29.8U-20OO were got implicated in Ex.AS MVI report, Ex.A6 charge sheet to get compensation to the petitioners from the respondent no.2. Therefore the petitionels failed to prove that the offending motorcyclc AP29 BU 2000 and its ider is respondent No.3 K- Jaganmohan Reddy but not Raghavender Reddy. Therefore, the Tribunal holds that the pleaded I t a 124 BRMR, J MACMA,No.I 14 of 2022 accident is not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Passion motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-20O0."

16. In case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George and Others, (2024) SCC Online sc 28831.

17.1 In Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2OO9) 13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question. Supreme Court held as follows: "14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 1O6 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead My wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3.

15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. [t was necessary to be borne in mind that strict prior of an accident caused by a particular bus in a pa(icular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely 10 estabtish their case on the touchstone of prefonderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond { a , "*t*, MACMA.No.l14 of2022 reasonable do-bt could not have been appti,ed. For the said 1)urpose, t.l.e High Cour: should have taken into c.onsideration the rcspective stories set fr:rth by both the parties.

16. The judgrent of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures ald surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No merterial brought on record has been referred trr for the said purpose." 17 .2 The ratio laid down in Bimla Devi's case supra is reiterated in Geeta Dubey and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Otherss.

18. Applyrng the test of preponderance of probabiliry now I have to see whether the appellants-petitioners have established ttreir case that it u'as Hero Honda Passsion motor cycle bearing Registration No AP-29-BU-2OOO which was involved in the accident with scooter bearing No. AP-28-D-9362.

19. The complaint is lodged by Peramdorai Venkatesh (PW4) on

03.12.2014 belbre the police Hayatnagar and the same is reproduced in c<rlumn No.12 of the FIR (Ex.A1): "The brief facts of the case are that on O2.L2.2O14 at abr:ut 0900 hours the co rrplainants brother Peramdorai Laknath, aged - 39 years, Occlr-Labour, Caste-Waddera, R/o Thormr village, Hayathnagar while proceeding towards Hayathnagar from Thorrur village on his Scooter Br No. AP 2A D 9362 mean time on reaching near Balreddl Poultry Farm, between Thormr to Hayathnagar the rider of two .vheeler i.e. Raghavendar Reddy R/o Koheda village, s 2K scc onLine SC 3779 I I to/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 Hayathnagar rode his bike (bike No. not lcrown) in a rash and negligent manner who came from back side and dashed to complainants brother, resulting which he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries to head and went in to unconscious, imrnediately shifted Osmania General Hospital, Hyder:abad for trcatment and while undergoing treatment he was succumbed to injuries on 03-12- 2014 at about 1355 hours, hence he requested for taking necessary action. (Complaint enclosed)"

20. Ex.Al is the FIR No.968/201a dated 03.12.2014 of PS Hayatnagar, wherein the name of the accused is shown as Raghavendar Reddy, rider of the bike. Crime is registered for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch dated 03.12.2014 in Crime No.968/2O14 which states that Jaganmohan Reddy drew Passion Pro Br.No.AP-B-BU-2OOO in a rash and negligent manner and dashed P.Lokesh. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report dated, 04.12.2014 which shows the name of Raghavendar Reddy R/o Koheda. Ex.AS is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report of passion pro vehicle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2OOO (M/C), wherein the name and address of the owner is shown as B.Ram Reddy S/o Dan Reddy (Respondent No. I herein), name and address of the driver is shown as K.Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o. K.Madhusudan Reddy, R/o. H.No.5-76, Koheda, Hayatnagar (Respondent No.3 herein), the driving licence is valid upto 31.07.2O33 and opinion is tl"at the accidegil {ccurred was not due to any mechanical defects olZbe "/ tr 124 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l 14 of 2022 vehicle vide report dated 16.12.2O14. Ex.A6 is the r:harge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by police station Hayatnagar in Cr.No.968/2O14 for the offence under section 3O4-A of IPC against Kallem Jaganmchan Reddy (Respondent No.3 herein). 2L. The invesrigation revealed that K.Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o K.Madhusudan Reddy age 19 years drove his Passion Pro bike Br.No.AP-29-BU-2OO0 in a rash arrd negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside, as a result he succumbed to rnjuries on 03.12.2014 at 13:55 hours in Osmania General Hospilrl and that he is responsible for the accident, liable for punishment under Section 304-A of IPC.

22.L PWI is tle wife of the deceased P.tokesh, she deposed that her husband rlied in a motor accident which took place on

02.12.2014 at 09.OO hours between Tornrru village to Hayatnagar road near Balrcddy poultry form within PS limits of Hayatnagar, Rangareddy District and her husband was proceeding on his scooter No.AP-118-D-9362 and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda passion pro bearing No.AP-29- BU-2O00, whicrh was driven by respondent No.3 and on the complaint giver: by PW4 Ex.A1-FIR came to be registered.

22.2 Respondr:nt Nos. 1 and 3 have cross-examined PW 1 , she statqd that the accused driver name is Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy ) )\ t2/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l 14 of2022 (R3). She denied the suggestion that accident has occurred due to the negligence ofher husband. Insurance company has dlso cross- examined the witness and she stated that her husband died on

03.12.2014 and the inquest was on 04.12.2014 and she was present there at. It is mentioned in the inquest report that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Raghavandher Reddy by unknown vehicle. Witness further stated that as per ttre panchanama dated 03.12.2014 (Ex.A4) it is mentioned that Jaganmohan Reddy rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-20OO was involved in the accident. She denied the suggestion that crime vehicle is implicated in the case to claim compensalion and that she has not filed the driving licence of the deceased.

23.1 PW2 is an eye witness to the incident, he deposed that on

02.12.2014 accident has taken place near Balreddy Poultry Form when P.[.okesh was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP-28-D- 9362 from Tormr village towards Hayatnagar, on approaching the Balreddy Poultry Farm one Hero Honda passion motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-20OO was driven in high speed in a negligent manner went wrong side of the road and dashed the scooter of P.Lokesh from behind due to which Lokesh sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and tlat l 13l24 BRMR, J MALIMA,No.l 14 of 2022 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of t}te crime vehicle.

23.2 Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have cross-examined the witness and he stated that he was sitting in the front of his shop, one motor vehicle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2OO0 was driven by Kallem Jagan Mohan Reddy came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner arrd went wrong side of the road and dashed the scooter of the deceased from behind, due to that accident the rider of the scooter P.Lokesh sustained head injury and became unconscious and was shifted to Osmania Gandhi Hospital, he died on O3.12.2OL4. PW2 denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed the accident.

23.3 PW2 is also cross-examined by the insurance company and stated that his name is not mentioned as an eye-rvitness in the charge sheet and he do not know tl,e contents of the FIR and as per the FIR ar::ident took place on 02.12.2074, a complaint is lodged on O3.l1a.2O14. PW2 denied the suggestion that accident occurred due tr:, the involvement of an unknown vehicle driven by one Raghavenclar Reddy but not due to the involvement of ttre motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2OO0 driven K..-lagan Mohan Reddy. \ \ t4/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l14 of2022

24.1 PW4 is the complainant in the criminal case. He deposed that P.lokesh is his brother. On O2.L2,2014 at about 09.00 a.m. while P.Lokesh was going on his scooter from Torn-rr towards Hayatnagar side on approaching near Balreddy Poultry Form on motorcycle i.e. passion pro bike bearing No.AP-29-BU-2O0O driven by its driver in high sped in a rash a-rrd negligent manner went on wrong side of the road and dashed the scooter of P.Lokesh from behind as a result P.Lokesh sustained head injury and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, while undergoing treatment he died on 03.12.2014 at 2.3O p.m. On his complaint Ex.Al-FIR is registered and that the accused driver wrongly informed the name as Raghavender Reddy, on investigation he disclosed his correct narne as K.Jagan Mohan Reddy R/o Koheda(V), Hayatnagar (M), Ranga Reddy District.

24.2 Respondent Nos.l and 3 failed to cross-examine the witness.

24.3 Insurance company cross-examined PW4 and he stated that in the complaint one unknown rider of two wheeler driven by one Raghavendher Reddy, R/o. Koheda (V), caused the accident on

02.12.2014, he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased on O4.72.2OL4 and his narne was mentioned as .L{trlt, it is also mentioned in the inquest report that accident occurred due to the involvement of one unknown motorcycle d,riven n ts 124 BRM& J MACIi{A.No.l 1.4 of 2022 by one K.Raghal'endher Reddy and he is not aware when and how ttre police traced out the accused name as K.Jaganmohan Reddy. PW4 denied the suggestion that though tJle accident occurred due to hit and run b1, unknown vehicle driven by Raghavendhar Reddy, in collusion witi owner they have implicated bike No.AP-29-BU- 2000 by showing the name of K.Jagan Mohan Reddy as an accused.

25. I PWs is another eye witness, his evidence is similar to that of the evidence of PW2 in respect of the accident and he further deposed that the Lokesh sustained head injury and was shifted in his auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-O 1 13 to Osmania General Hospital and he also informed the family members of takesh. The rider of the motorcycle wrongly informed his name as Raghavendhar Reddy instead of K.Jagan Mohan Reddy.

25.2 Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have not cross-examined the witness.

25.3 Insurance oomp€rny has cross-examined the witness and he stated that he h:Ls not lodged any complaint before the police and he do not know whether his name is mentioned as a witness in t].e charge sheet, so ;Llso he is not aware that in the police records the rider name was rnentioned as Raghavendhar Reddy. PWS denied \\ \ t6/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l 14 of2022 the suggestion that he is giving false evidence to support the petitioners.

26.1 RW1 is the kgal Manager in respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, he deposed that policy is issued in respect of Hero Honda Passion M/c No.AP-29-BU-2O00 which is valid from

21.04.2014 to 20.O4.2015 belongs to respondent No.1 and as per the FIR (Ex.Al) one Raghavendar Reddy is shown as rider of unknown vehicle at the time of alleged accident, who was not having a valid driving licence and to hx the liability against respondent No.2-company in collusion with owner and driver they have implicated one K.Janardhan Reddy S/o Madhusudan Reddy as the rider. Spot Panchanama conducted on 03.12.2074 and inquest on 04.12.2014 clearly establishes that the alleged accident occurred due to the involvement of unknown vehicle driven by M.Raghavender Reddy, who was not having a valid driving licence. Basing on the charge sheet petitioners are claiming compensation. Accident occurred due to involvement of unknown vehicle which was driven by the person without having driving licence and without conducting proper investigation and examining any eye- witness police frled charge sheet.

26.2 ln his cross-examination he admitted that as per charge (-i sheet-Ex.A6 and MVI report - Ex.AS one Kallem Jagan Molan I r\ t7 /24 BRMR, ; MACMA.No.l 14 of 2022 Reddy (Respondent No.3 herein) was shown as driver of the crime vehicle. Witness adds that as per FIR one Raghavender Reddy is shown as the d river of the crime vehicle. As per Ex.AS K.Jagan Mohan Reddy (R3) is having valid driving licence and he did not file any documentary evidence to show that M.Raghavender Reddy is in existence anc. he has also not filed any report of the investigator in the Court, he will make efforts to examine M. Raghavendhar Reddy. RW1 dt:nied the suggestion that accident occurred due to the rash arrd negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and he possess val.id driving licence and that insuranct: company is liable to pay the same. 27 . It is the case of the respondent No.2 that crime vehicle is wrongly involved to claim the insurance. In the evidence of RW1 he has given the name of K.Janardhan Reddy S/o.Madhusudhan Reddy, the said name is neither in Ex.Al nor he is party in the MVOP. Except a bear assertion that the vehicle has been wrongly involved, the insurance company which has set up a plea of collusion has done nothing to make good its case. It is worth mentioning that insurance company did not lodge any complaint of collusion aborrt the involvement of crime vehicle. Burden is on the insurance contpany to prove that there was a collusion between the appellant wittr that of R1 and R3, which burden is not discharged UV tnelr.., tf the insurance company had suspectecl collusion they ta/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.l14 of 2022 would have taken steps to frle an appropriate complaint including moving the higher police authorities or the Court to order an investigation into the alleged wrongful involvement of the vehicle.

28. In Janabai's casel Supreme Court observed at paragraph No. I I which reads as under: 'Paragraph No.11. the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of tlle statement of appellant No.l who suffered injuries in tJ:e accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it alrd not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find tlat the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.

29. In Kuncham l,avanya's case2 Supreme Court observed at paragraph No. 17 which reads as under: Paragraph No.l7- The very fact that ttre case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not identified. However, since an F.I.R. is not expected to be encyclopedic [See Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175, para 2Ol and is only for ttte purpose of putting into motion criminal law such that ttrorough and full-fledged investigation by the police ensues, it is ttre dutSr of the investigating agency to fmd out the identity of the culprit /which in the present case would be the offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that initially the F-I.R. records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/claimants to later come up vrith -the specfic identity of the vehicle/driver, with the obvious caveat that the connectio t ol ttyz/ 19 124 BRMR, J MACMA.No.I I,r of 2022 accident with. tlte said vehicle has to be based on cogent ard reliable evidence."

30. Though PW2 and PWS are not shown as $,itness in the charge sheet (Lx.A6), their evidence could n(ot be discarded see Delhi Transporl. Corporation's case3 and Repaka Rajya Laxmi's case4 . In view ,rf the decision supra the evidence of PW2 and PWS cannot be disc;rrded and they speak ttre manner in which the accident has occurred. It is worth mentioning that PW4 and PWs were not cross-examined by R1 - owner of the crime vehicle and R3 - driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.l and Respondent No.3 have filed counter in the OP filed by the appellants but they did not enter inlo the witness box to substantiate their contention. Owner and insurer of scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362 are not necessary partir:s in view of the fact that owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are made as parties i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 3.

31. Applyrng the test of preponderance of probabilities, I lind that the petitioners have established their case by examining PW2 and PWS and that the accident took place on the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.3 and I feel that there is no reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned in the matter and launch prosecution against the driver. The observations of the Tribunal stated supra at paragraph No.15 are p&verse ard has not properly appreciated the evidence on \ \ \ BRMR, J MACMA.No.l14 of 2022 record, further more placed burden on the appellants that they have not examined respondent No.l to prove the accident, investigating ollicer is also not examined to explain and prove in what circumstances rider name is changed from Raghavender Reddy to K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, which findings are liable to be set aside.

32. This Court felt that whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. Since the accident occurred on O2.12.2014 as already 9 years has elapsed, further delay will only compound ttre agony of the family hence proceeded to answer issue No.2 framed by the Tribunal with regard to entitlement of compensation by the appellants-petitioners.

33. The Tribunal has not alswered issue No.2 in view of the fact that the issue No.l was against the appellants-petitioners as they failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the rider of tl.e crime vehicle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2OOO.

34. The evidence of PWI is that her husband Lokesh was aged about 36 years and was working as granite stone cutting worker, earning Rs. 12,OOO/- per montl'r and was contributing the entire earnings to tlle family and she lost her husband, appellant Nos.2 and 3 have lost their father and in total claimed an amogrlt of Rs. I5,OO,OOO/- towards compensation I I 21124 BRMR, .; MACMA,No-114 of 2022

35. 1 PW3 is thc employer of the deceased Lokesh, he deposed that he is doing stone cutting and flooring business and deceased was working under him as a daily wage labourer and used to pay Rs.500/- per day excluding on Sunday on an average he used to pay Rs. 12,000/- per month.

35.2 In his cross-examination by respondent Nos. 1 and 3 counsel, he stated that the deceased was working under him for the past 5 years and he is rrot maintaining any records for payment of wages.

35.3 In his cross-examination by the Insurarce company and he stated that he has not filed any document to show that the deceased was ernployed as a labour and used to earn Rs. 12,O00/- per month. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.

36. The evidence of PWl and PW3 goes to show that the deceased [,okes]r is a granite stone cutter and flooring worker, used to earn Rs. 112,OOO/ - per month. Ministry of .Labour and Employment Notification No. 1O47 dated 31. 10.201 0 vide The Gazette of India has fixed Rs.8,00O/- as monthly wages. The above said wages (Rs.8,OOO) can safely be taken as the income of the deceased. I

37. Off._, the deceased is shown as 36 years in the claim petition, the sane age is shown in Ex.A2 - inquest report, Ex.A3 - BRMR, J MACMA.No.l 14 of 2022 post-mortem examination report hence this Court is of the view that the deceased falls in the age group of 36-40 years and appropriate multiplier is '15'; number of dependents are three deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3.4 as per Salar Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation6. Future prospects can be added at the rate of 4oo/o as the deceased is in the age group of below 40 years as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay SethiT. Petitioners are also entitled for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the decision in Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and otherss.

38. The computation is .under: Sl.No. Name of the Head 1 2 3 4 5 6 Income Add 40% future prospects Deduct 1/ 3rd towards personal expenses Annual income Multiplier '15' Consortium Amount awarded Rs.8,000/- Rs. 1 1,200/- (4oo/o of 8,000) + 8,000 Rs.7,467 /- [11,200-37331 ((1/ 3 x 11,20o) - 3,733.333 taken as Rs.3,733/J Rs.89,604l- ?,a67 x 12) Rs. 13,44,060/- (89,60a x 15) Rs. 1,20,00O/- " (zoos) o scc tzt '(zorz) ro scc sgo " (zotg) ra scc rgo 2312q BRMR. J MACMA.No.I l4 of 2022 7 8 (Rs. a0,0OO/- each) Losr; of estate Fun eral expenses Totzd (40,000 x 3) Rs. 15,00O/- Rs. 15,OOO/- Rs. 14,94,O6O/- Rounded off to Rs.14,94,(XX)/-

39. Interest t.o be awarded at the rate of 9o/o per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Ottrers vs. l,okendra Rathod and otherse-

40. In the result, MACMA.No.114 of 2022 is allowed in part as under: a) The impugned award dated O5.1L.2O21, passed in MVOP.No. 2O3 of 2015, is set aside. b) The appellants are awarded compensation of Rs. 14,94,OOO/- togettrer with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of frling the petition till payment. c) Appellant No. I - petitioner No. I is entitled to Rs.5,97,6OO/- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. e 2022 SCC Online S(: 1683 BRMR, J MACMA.No.I 14 of 2022 6, d) Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.4,48,200/- each and ttrey permitted to withdraw their entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing securit5r. e) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit ttre awarded amount jointly and severa-lly with interest and costs wittrin a period of 6O days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, sha-ll stand closed. No costs. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD D PUTY REGISTRAR \ V SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'bte Sri Justice B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO (For His Lordships kind perusal) To, 1 1 2 3 4 5 . The Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum-XXV| Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. . 11 LR Copies . Th-e Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi . The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad . One CC to Sri B.Venkat Reddy Advo&te [OpUC] . One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate tbpucl . Two CD Copies NVB/I'SI, N/ HIGH COURT DATED:1 8108,t2025 JUDGMENT+ I)ECREE MACMA.N 0.1'14 ot 2022 t\* '3TrfE l) I 11 tti m5 R<s.= MACMA IS AI..LOWED IN PART WITHOI.'T COSTS Iq I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSANDAND TWENW FIVE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO PRESENT MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 114 OF 2022 Between:

1. Smt.P.Saraswathi, Wo.P.Lokesh, Aged about 39 years, Occ.Household, R/o.5-29, Torrur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.

2. P.Karthik, S/o.P.Lokesh, Aged about 22 years, Occ.Labour, R/o.5-29, Torrur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy Diskict.

3. P.Neela, D/o. P.Lokesh, Aged about 20 years, Occ.Household, R/o.5-29, Torrur Village, Hayathnagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. Appellants 2 and 3 are disclosed as Majaors by discharging him from A1. Vide Court Order dated 04.04.2025 in l.A.No.3 and 4 of o Z uardianship 022. ...Appel lants/Petitioners AND

1. Samreddy Ram Reddy S/o.Dan Reddy, Major, Occ.Owner of Motor Cycle Bearing.No. AP29-BU-2000, R/o.5-140, RBR Nagar, Almasguda Village Saroornagar Mandal, Rangareddy District.

2. The lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co.Ltd., Rep by its legal Manager, H.No.6-3-352/1, 2nd and 3rd floor (Osman Plaza) Road No.1 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

3. Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o.K.Madhusudhan Reddy, Aged about 21 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o.H.no.5-76, Kohida Village, Haythanagar Mandal, Rangareddy District. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.203 of 2015 daled 0511112021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV| Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grouMs of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and the Sri Harinath Reddy Some, Advocate, Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. -7 This Court doth Orcler and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the impugned award dated 05.11.2021 , passed in MVOP.No.203 of 2015, is set asrde.

3. That the appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.'14,94,0001 together with interest at the rate oI 9Yo per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

4. That the appellant No.1 petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.5,97,600/- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without fumishing security.

5. That the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs. 4,48,2001- ear:h and they permitted to withdraw their entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

6. That the resp rndents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD -.DE4JTY REGTSTRAR ! [-.\_ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV| Additional Ch ef Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copi,::s NVB W HIGH COURT' DATED: 1 8108,t2025 _:=\- C !) .i .t ,17 filT 295 t-r-F,t it: .,r€' :\. .\ I I DECREE MACMA.No,'114 o12022 MACMA IS AI.LOWED IN PART WITHOIJT COSTS 1 I