The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Surya Balu Mahendra Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri M.S. Bhaskar Rao Counsel for the Respondent No. 2: Sri A. Malathi The Court delivered the following: -r-rl, ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.SSS of 2Ot9 JUDGM:ENT This appear is filed by the appellant-craimant under Section 173 of the M':tor Vehicles Act, lgg', cha,enging the order and d.ecree dated r7'rr'20r9 passed in o.p.No.g4g of 200g by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamab.d (for short "the Tribunal,,), whereby the Tribunar dismissed the claim petition. 2' The case of the claimant before the Tribunar was that on I1'Og'20c'g at about 3.15 a.m., whire he was travering in a Maruti omni van bearing No.Ap-25-Tv-0523, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and .egrigent manner and dashed against a parked lorry near Goel Petrol punrp, Medchar check-post, resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant' lJe was shifted to Balaji Hospital, secunderabad and treated as an inpatient. claiming that the accident occurred sorely due to the negligence of the driver, the claimant sought compensation of Rs'6,0o,oot)/-. The Tribunal after full-fledged enquiry dismissed the claim petiti,tn. Hence the appeal. 3' The lt:arned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in dis:,issing the craim petition without properry appreciating the Y-S'T \ - z oral and d.ocumentary evicence placed on record- It is contended that even though the claimant consistently stated that the accident occurred on 11.09.2008 and the medical recorcl, including the MLCs and dischargesummaries,reflecttreatmentforinjuriessustainedinthe said road accident, the Tribunal placed undue ernphasis on certain discrepanciesinthepolicepapers,whicharenotfataltotheclaim.Itis further contended that the claimant cannot be penalised for the manner in which the police recorded the date in their documents and that the Tribunaloughttohaveacceptecltheversionsupportedbythemedical evidenceandthetestimonyofthedoctors.Thusthelearnedcounsel submitted that the linding that the accident did not occur on ll.og.2o08isunsustainableandthedismissaloftheclaimpetition warrants interference.

4. On the other hand', learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-lnsuranceCompanysubmittedthattheTribunalwasjustifiedin dismissing the claim petition, as the claimatrt failed to establish the very occurrence of the accident on the date pleaded' tt is pointed out that the potice records relied on by the claimant himself, including the FlR,chargesheetandGeneralDiaryentries,consistentlymentionthe dateofaccidentas20.og.2oosbutnotll.og.2ooS.Itiscontendedthat the driver of the vehicle, in the criminal case, admitted to a date contradictory to the claimant's version and the claimant did not 3 examine the police constabre who allegedly shifted him to the hospital. It is argued that the medicar documents do not independentry prove the date of accident and that the inconsistencies in the craimant,s own evidenct: render his version unreriable. Thus the rearned counsel submittr:d that the Tribunal righ,y held that the accident preaded by the clai:nant was not proved and urtimately prayed to dismiss the appeal. 5' The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the clainrant estabrished that the accident occurred on ii.09.200g in the manner pleaded, and consequentry, whether the dismissal of the claim pet.tion calls for any interference. 6' A c'rreful scrutiny of the record reveals that the main issue that tell for corsideration before the Tribunar was with regard to the date of occurrenc3 0f the accident. The claimant rested his case entirely on the accident allegedly occurring on 11.09.200g. However, the police documentr; reried on by him, including the FIR and the charge sheet, disclose ttre date as 2o.o9.200g. The General Diary entries marked before the Tribunal also did not support the date of rr.o9.2oog. The driver' exa:nined as pw-6, had faced criminal proceedings wherein the date recor<led was not 11.0g.200g. These are alr contemporaneous official records and cannot be lighily discarded. 1-\ 4 T.Themedicalevidencereliedonbytheclaimant,thoughindicative of treatment for injuries suffered in a road trafhc accident' does not independently establish the exact date or the circumstances of the occurrence'Thedoctorsexamined,couidnotaffirmthesignatureson the MLCs nor speciff the age of injurries in a manner that would fix the accident on 11.09'2008' The claimant did not examine the police constable who allegedly shifted him from the accident spot' His own admissionthathehadearliermentionedthedateas2o.0g.200Sin prior proceedings further weakens his version'

8. The Tribunal considered the entire material and recorded a categorical finding that the claimant faited to prove that the accident tookplace on 11'09'2008 as pleaded' The burden rests on the claimant toestablishthebasicparametersoftheaccident.Whenthedateitselfis notprovedandtherearematerialinconsistenciesbetweentheclaim petitionandtheconternporaneouspolicedocumertts'the'I.ribunalwas justifiedinholdingthattheVelyoccurrenceofaccidentpleadedbythe claimanthadnotbeenestablished.Onoverallconsiderationofthe evid.ence, this Court finds no reason to take a different view' The Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the claim' The findingthattheclaimantdid.notprovetheaccidentaSallegedisa findingoffactbasedontheevidenceanddoesnotwarrantinterference in aPPellate jurisdiction' ar- { 5 g. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No orderas to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand clo:;ed. To, Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman Motor Accidents claims Tribunal_cum_ Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. (with records) 2. one (lc to sri surya Balu Mahendra, Advocate topucl 3. One ()C to Sri M.S. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate tOpLCt 4. One CC to Sri A. Malathi, Advocate tOpUCI 5. Two OD Copies AS/DL dW t.rllE ta,i!. ) o L.' 1il l,lAff 2016 z. * * n.{', 'lt' HIGH COURT DATED:21 t1112025 JUDGMEN-T MACMA.Nc,.555 of 2019 DISMISSINGiTHE APPEAL CZ KS ,n11* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDOY ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS OF Between: Korva Sailu, S/o. Ramulu, aged 51 years, Occ. business and Kamdar, R/o. Kulaspur village of mandal and district Nizamabad. ...AppellanUAppellant ANO

1. Neeradi Raju, S/ O. Raja mandal and District, Niza TV-0523). ram, aged major, R/O.H.NO. 1-7411 Kulaspur (V) of mabad (owner of Maruthi Omini bearing NO. AP-25-

2. The Baiaj Allianz General lnsurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Branch hanager, Branch office, GE plaza, airport rga{, Ygnqylda, .P.ule - 41 '1006,(Maharashtra state) (vide insurance policy NO. BA40'16697 valid from 16-5-2008 to 1 5-5-2009) ... Respondents/ResPondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated Dt. 17-11-2018 passed in O.P.No. 948 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the LowerCourt and the.material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri Surya Balu Mahendra, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri M.S. Bhaskar Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Sri A. Malathi, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is dismissed; 2. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

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

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad.

2. Two CD Copies Tribunal-cum- Vlll AS/DL F I I I i t : / { HIGH COUR-T DATED:21 11112025 DECREE MACMA.No.li55 of 2019 DISMISSING THE APPEAL JK, 6plr;