The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1 & 2 : VLADIMEER KHAT: CN Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I i I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.Vl.A.No.365 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kondadi A.jay Kurnar, learned counsel tbr the appellant and Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon, Iearned counsel I'or respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Perused the entire record.

2. This appeal IS preferred by the appellant/respondcnt No.2 i.e., insurance company aggrieved by the arvard passed by the leamed Chairman, Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunal-curn-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secundcrabad, in M.V.O.P.No.l85 of 2018 datcd

20.04.2022, wherein an anrount of Rs.20,17,000/- rvas awardcd towards compensation in a claim petition filed by respondent Nos. I and 2 herein seeking compensation ol Rs.15,00,000/- on account of death of one Nenavath Babu Naik in a road lraffic accident from the appellant and respondent No.3 herein jointly and severally

3. The brieflacts are that on t5.08.20 16, the deceased and his friend (respondent No.3 herein) were going from Hyderabad to Somashila on motorcycle bearing No.TS l0 EG 9227 and on reaching Rajapur limits on NH-44, Balangar, Mahabubnagar, respondent No.3, who was riding the motorcycle, drove the motorcycle in rash and negligent manner in high speed causing the fall of the motorcycle. As a result, the deceased RY,.I \,lA(_'MA 365 2021 sustained injuries and was shifted to Area Governrnent Il()spital, Jedcherla and thcn to NIMS, Panjagutta, I Iyderabad, whcrc he c i 'r{ on 29 08.20 I (r. On account of dcath of the deccased, thc parents o1 lic cleceascd i.e., rcspondent Nos. I and 2 filed claim pctition seekinil conrpcnsation ol Rs.15.00,0001.

1. Respondent Nos. I and 2 herein/claim pctitior r rs got erantined P.Ws.l and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-l to A-8. On belr r I ol'rhc appellanr. E,x.lJ- I was got rnarked. Upon examining the evideir t' orr record, thc Tribunal awarded an amount ol I1s.20,27,000/- leadir r to liling ol'the prescnt appeal b,i'the appellant i.e., insurance companv.

5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant-in surance conr )irn\ pleadcd that the aocident occurred due to own negligence of thc t.cclsed and the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay rr \ cornpcnsaiion. Further, it is emphasized that no eyewitness is examined I nd 1,.W.2, ri.ho is examined as eyewitness denied his involvement in the ar-.idcnr. Lastl1,, i1 is pleaded that respondent Nos.l and 2 herein colludc: rvith police ancl falsely irnplicated the insured vehicle for compensation i r cl prayed that the present appeal be allowed by setting aside the impugned rL vard.

6. A perusal of the police record shows that the dec, sss11 was pillion rider.f'the motorcycle involved in the accident and the s. re u.,as drivcn bv 2 RY.J MACMA 365 2OZ3 one Nenavath Ra.iesh Naik. Since the deceased was not riding the t I motorcycle, no negligence can be attributed to him lor occurrence ol the accident. In fact, the deceased was the victirn of negligent driving of thc rider of motorcycle

1. The next point pleaded in grounds of appeal is that the P.W.2 is not eyewitness to the accident. When the evidcnce of P.W.2 is perused, it is seen that P.W.2 deposed that he along with arrother person were travelling on motorcycle on the date ol the accident arld they witnessed the accident. P.W.2 never deposed that he hirnself rvas involved in the accident. It is rightly contended by the appellant that the narne of P.W.2 does not tigure in the charge sheet. However, any eyewitness whose name does not figurc in the charge sheet can also be examined in-case he or she witnessed the accident. As such, no fault can be lound with the evidence of P.W.2, who altegedly witness the accident and deposed befbre the Tribunal

8. Lastly, the appellant alleged mala fide implication of insured vehicle in the accident for seeking wrongful gain. In that context, a perusal olthe counter filed by the appellant before the 'fribunal does not show any pleadings with respect to false implication of the insured vehicle in the \ accident. The counter filed by the appellant before the Tribunal contalns routine defences taken about driving Iicense violation, non-hling of I I 3 RY.J ,4A( MA 365 2023 accident information report, violation of Sections 155 (l and t34 (c) and also def-ence available under Sections 170 (b) and 14! ll) ol'the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. etc.. There is no specific pleading irr thc counter about thc l'alse irnplication ol the insurcd vehicle in the acciti,: t. ln addition t<r failure to plead about lalse implication of the insured velr clc, the appcllant also lailed to exanrine any witness on its behalf to depr : : about the samc belorc thc Tribunal. The appellant merely marked Ex.ll- i.c , copy ot'thc InsLlrance policv without leading any oral evidence. StLch f-ailurc t<r exarnine an1, rvitncss tantamounts to accepting the r:lz nt put fbrth bt.- respondcnt Nos. I and 2 herein, without any defence.

9. In the circumstances. this Court does not see an\ : zrson to intcrlirc with the impugncd award passed by the Tribunal as sucF thc appcal lacks rnerits and is liablc to be dismissed

10. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed conf r ning the arvard, dated 20.04.2022 passed by the Tribunat in M.V.O.P Jo. I85 of l0l8 There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous lctitiorrs, if any, pending in this appcal, shall stand closed. sD/-1- : ASSI: RINIVASA REDDY IANT RECISTRAIT //TRUE COPY// \ \ SECTION OFFICER l!-e Cn1.1m11 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cuir_Xtt Judge, City Civil Court. Secunoerabad. rdditional Chief ?fo ' -- ::l*a!Et \ To, 1 ..iEiit*qEFcffiy'/ y',/ _ jv. ,/ --/ t ! I 2 One CC to SRI KONDADI AJAY KUIUAR Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI VLADIMEER KHATOON Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies GE CH{Z \ HIGH COURT DATED:18/0812025 \ :S ( U I * (-,i i( JUDGMENT MACMA.No.365 of 2023 \ ,, t I DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS zf\ (9 b\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134421 MONDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 365 OF 2023 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V.Act, against Order and Decree daled 20.04.2O22 passed in IV.V.O.P.No. 185 of 2018 on the file of the court of the Chairman, [Vlotor Accidents C{aims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Between: It//s National lnsurance Company Limited, rep by its Regional Manager, legal cell, Jubilee Building Abids, Nampally Road, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

1. Nenavath Janamma, Wo. Nanavath Hanumanthu, Aged about 39 years, Occ. House wife Rio. H.No. 23-131 , Bhudevinagar, Alwal, Secunderabad.

2. Nenavath Hanumanthu, S/o. Rekhya, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. H.No. 23-131, Bhudevinagar, Atwal, Secunderabad. . . . . Respondents/Claimants/Petitioners 3. Nenavath Rajesh Naik, S/o. Balu Naik, Age tvlajor, Occ Owner-cum-Driver, R/o. H.No. 1-23-51 1, Plot No.56, Bhudevinagar, Venkatapuram Secunderabad ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI VIADIMEER KHATOON, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 and none appeared for Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the Motor Accident Civil [\iliscella neous Appea be dismissed. and is hereby 2 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal llTrue Copytt To sD/- T !; ltNtvASA REDDY REGISTRAR ASSI1, ',\NT \ iECTION OFFICER 1 2 The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum-X, , dditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. Two CD Copies. GE ct4t' HIGH COURT DATED:18/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.365 of 2023 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,-( !^Lt -n\rrt U "(