The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDy Counsel for the Respondent No.1:-- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt P.SATYA MANJUL6 M.A.C.M.A.No.590 of 2020 ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1i 38 against the Order and decree in M.V.O P.No.602 ol 2011 dated 19l02t2020 on t re fite of the Court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family cc r rt-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. Between: Pinnapureddy Parvathamma, Wo. Linga Reddy, A Agriculture, R/o. Parada Village of Kattangur Mand Presently residing at V.T. Colony, Nalgonda Tbwn. .65 years, Occ. Nalgonda District, AND 1 2 ...Appellant M Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged. Not known, ( cc Owner of TATA DCM bearing No AP-24U-5046, R/o. H No.8-1-351, R.T r). Cotony, Natgonda Town and District. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Organizinll lranch, / prakasham Bazir,- _Nalgonda Town and Distiict Rep.by r-ts Brjr :h Manaqer. policv No.6'1320031'100200000840, Vatid from 1Z_OA_ZOIrt to 21_0"6_2011 o'f Nalgonda Branch) Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDy Counsel for the Respondent No.1:-- Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt p.SATyA MANJULA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ... Res pondents ./ ., THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NANDIKONDA NARSII{G RAO M.A.C.M.A.Nos.583 s88 & 590 0F 2()20 COMMON JUDGMENT: These M.A.C.M.A. are hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellants/petitioners aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 19.02.2020 passed in O.P.Nos.6O3, 6O4 and 602 ol 2Oll by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court) at Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal").

2. Since the parties and issues raised in these appeals are common, these appeals are being heard analogous and are disposed of by way of this common judgment

3. For convenience sake, the facts of M.A.C.M.A.No.583 of 2O2O are discussed herein under: 4 On 27.O4.2O1 1 at about 5.OO p.m., the petitioner along with his mother and minor son were proceeding from V.T.Colony, Nalgonda, towards Hyderabad road on their Splendor motorcycle being No.AP 24 G 541 and whe,6-they reached near income tax office, outskirts of Arjalabai, the 2 driver of the Tata DCM vehicte bearing No.AP 21 U 5046 drove the same in a rash ald negligent manner anc dashed against the Splendor motorcycle of the petitioner, clu: to which the petitioner received fracture to his right leg, gr,, r,ous injurv on the head and received multiple injuries all or,: - the body and his mother received fracture injuries and his rr nor son aged 5 years also received grievous injuries. Thev u,,:. , shifted to the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nalgond: , after first aid they were shifted to Aware Global Hospital, {yderabad, for treatment and where he took treatment for lr s injuries and also underwent operation.

5. The Police registered a case in Cr.No.72 ct 2Oll against th'e driver of the offending vehicle for the ofle r ce punishable under Section 338 of Indian penal Code.

6. The petitioner was ha_1e and hea_lthy, age d rbout 35 years and used to ezrrn Rs.6,OOO/- per month on an €\ erage as Lorry Driver. Due to accident, he is unable to drive t-: vehicles and unable to do any work as he has sustai rL .d permanent disability due to fracture of right leg. Thereforc the petitioner liled a claim petition claiming compensation of Fl ;.8,00,00O/_. i i I ; t l 7 The 1"t respondent is the driver and owner of the offending vehicle and the 2"d respondent is the insurance company. Both are made liable for payment of compensation B. The 1"t respondent remained exparte. The 2'a respondent filed their separate counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased so also the treatment taken by the claimant. It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and there is also breach of tra-ffic rules and as such prayed to dismiss the claim petition. g. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the accident occurred on 27 .04.20 1 1 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tata DCM vehicle bearing No.AP 24 U 5046 and whether the Claimant Pinnapureddy Venkat Reddy sustained injuries? 4 \

2. Whether the claimalt is entitled for corr rensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To q,hat relieP

10. To prove the petitioner's case, PWs. 1 to .J u,ere examined and marked trxs.Al to A6 and on behalf of ;..spondent No.2 RW.l vvas examined ald marked Ex.Bl-tr- 3 copy of the lnsurance policy ',l.as marked 1 1. After considering the oral anrl documentary evidence availabie on record, the learned Tri runal carne to conclusion tliat there is discrepancy regard; Lg the district code number of the crime vehicle and accordi rgly dismissed the M.V.O.Ps. Challenging the same, the petitirners fiIed the present appcals seeking compensation. 1,2.

13. Heard both sides and perused the rr., ord Learned counsel for the petitioners :ontended that though the crime vehicle bearing No.Ap 3U 50.1 i was found at the scene of offence, the Tribunal without consi: :ring the same dismissed the petitions. He further contended .hat the crime vehicle involved is bearing No.Ap 3U 5046 however, the I a I i 5 petitioners wrongly mentioned the crime vehicle number as AP 24 U 5046 which is a typographical error. He also submitted that except the district code number of the crime vehicle, the entire number of the crime vehicle was tallied in Ex-B1 policy' Hence, prayed the court to allow these appeals. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel 14. appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the petitions, which needs no interference'

15. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of entire material placed on record and aJso the record of the tria-l court, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners mentioned the crime vehicle number as AP 24 U 5046, whereas Ex-Bl, policy and Ex-A-4, scene of offence panchanama, shows the crime vehicle m.rmber as AP O3 U

5046. It is noteworthy that though the petitioners raised a plea that the vehicle number is mentioned as AP 24 U 5046 due to typographical error, no evidence is adduced to prove the same and no steps has been taken to amend the pleadings' Pertinently, the police after completing the investigation filed \ 6 charge sheet mentioning the crime vehicle nurr ber as Ap 24 U 5046 and zrlso the depositions of the witnesser; shows that the alieged involvement of crime vehicle numbe. was Ap 24 U 5046 only.

16. It is trite that the burden to establish involvement of the vehicle rests with th<r claimants. In Minu B. Mehta v. Balkrishna Ramchandra II tyan, lL9Z7l 2 SCC 441, tire Honble Supreme Court helrl that proof of negligence and identification of the offend I g vehicle are foundational facts for fastening liability urL, ler the Motor Vehicles Act

17. Thc Hon'ble Supreme Courr Bharathamma v. State of Andhra pradesh, in Challa 2OO4l a SCc 5 17 dealt wrth a similar situation where r.l Le registration number of thc vehicle was in dispute. It held t rat unless the claimants adduce reliable evidence establish r ,g the correct vehicle number and its involvement, compens.r ion cannot be awarded. The insurer cannot be saddled with lirt rility based on conjectures or incorrect particulars. 1

18. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v- Premlata Shukla, l2OO7l 13 SCC 476, it was reiterated that courts cannot proceed on assumptions or presumptions when the basic pleadings are inconsistent with the evidence. A.ry fundamental contradiction in the description of the offending vehicle undermines the very basis of the claim.

19. Likewise, in Ravi v. Badrinarayan' (2O11! 4 SCC 693, the Supreme Court held that though a liberal approach is warranted in accident claims, basic contradictions such as the correct vehicle number cannot be ignored, as they go to the root of the liability. Applying these principles, it is clear that the 20. appellants failed to reconcile the inconsistency in the vehicle number. Despite their plea of typographical error, no amendment was sought in the pleadings, nor was independent evidence adduced to prove that the insured vehicle bearing No' t \ AP 03 U 5046 was in fact involved' On the contrar5r, the charge sheet and depositions consistently mention AP 24 V so46. 8

21. As held in Ramachandrappa v. .! anager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., (2O1, ) 13 SCC 236, the benevolenr objecr of the Motor Vehicle _. Act does not absolve the claimarits of their duty t() establish the foundational lircts of liability. Without prooj of the correct vehicle, the claim is un sustainable. 22 . I n view of the above discussior r and binding precedents, this court is of the opinion thzL the Tribunal rightly dismissed the craim petitions for fairr- ; e to establish invoivement of the insured vehicle. No illegaiit-, or irregularity is found in the impugned common orc ( r warranting interference bv this Court.

23. Accordingll,, these appeals are dir; nissed. There shall be no orcler as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pendir 3, shall stand closed. Di\[ . JAWAHAR REDDY S:i STANT REGLSIEAR' 11 1P^r1: La?1 rr SECTION OFFICER .,' To, \ '1 . The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Ju Additional District Judge, Nalgonda U; :amily Court-Cum-Vl

2. One CC to SRI P.RAI\4AKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate ( )PUCI

3. One CC to Smt P.SATYA N/ANJULA, Advocate [OPU(;

4. Two CD CoPtes M IE*FX,===-ll:-:"* , -.!:r, :rESri]:'ri.. ;r'lEil i l l i i I I I i i I I I t HIGH COURT DATED:2910912025 1 E 5 14 1R I 0 JAll 2016 _:t-i -_ i/ vi?' COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.Nos.583, 588 & 590 of 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA'S WITHOUT }OSTS b V,t i I [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.C.M.A.Nos.583 588 & 590 0F 2020 M.A.C.M.A.No.583 of 2020 Between: Pinnapureddy Venkat Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Age. 45 years, Occ. Lorry Driver, R/o. Parada Village of Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict, Presently residing at V.T. Colony, Nalgonda Town- ...Appellant ANO

1. M. Srinivas Reddy and another, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged. Not known, Occ. Owner of TATA DCM bearing No.AP-24U-5046, R/o. H.No.B-1-35'l , R.T.C. Colony, Nalgonda Town and District.

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Organizing Branch, Prakasham Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District Rep.by its Branch Manager. Policy No.61320031 100200000840, Valid from 22-06-2010 to 21 -06-201 1 of Nalgonda Branch) ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,'1 9BB against the Order and decreeinM.V.O.P.No.603of 2011 daled.19l02l2020onthefileof theCourtof the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. M.A.C.M.A.No.588 of 2020 Between: Pinnapureddy Shiva Kumar Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged. 15 years, Occ. Nil, being Minor, Represented by his next friend and father/guardian Pinnapureddy Venkat Reddy, S/o. Linga Reddy, Aged 45 years, Occ. Lorry Driver, R/o. Parada Village of Kattangur Mandal, Nalgonda District, Presently residing at V.T. Colony, Nalgonda Town. ...Appellant AND 1 M. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Ram Reddy, Aged. Not knowr' DCII/ bearing No.AP-24U-5046, R/o.H.No 8-'1-351, lt- Town and District. Occ. Owner of TATA C. Colony, Nalgonda 2 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Organrz r Bazar, Nalgonda Town and District Rep.by its Br: No.61320031i00200000840, Valid from 22-06-201 Nalgonda Branch) I ) Branch, Prakasham h Manager. Policy to 21-06-2011 of ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, I )BB against the Order and decree in M V O P No.604 of 2011 dated.19l02l2020 on he file of the Court of the [\ilotor Accrdent Claims Tribuna l-cum-J udge, Family C: rrt-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Nalgonda M.A.C.M.A.No.590 of 2020 Between: Pinnapureddy Parvathamma, Wo. Linga Reddy, li, ed Agriculture, R/o Parada Village of Kattangur Manrl rl, Presently residing at V.T. Colony, Nalgonda Town. .65 years, Occ. Nalgonda District, ...Appellant M. Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Ram Reddy, Aged. Not known )cc. Owner ofTATA DCM bearing No AP-24U-5046, R/o H.No.8-1-351, R l ). Colony, Natgonda Town and District. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Organizinl Branch, / Prakasham Qaz91,-_\ql-gon!g Towl and District Rep.by its Brir ch Manager. Policy No 6'1320031100200000840, Valid from 22-06-201( to 21-06-2011 df Nalgonda Branch) AND 1 a Appeal filed Under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19B8 : gainst the Order and decree in Ivl.V.O. P.No.602 of 2011 dated.19l02l2020 on the ti e of the Court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family court-cur -Vl Additional Drstrict Judge, Nalgonda. ... Respondents This appeals comrng on for hearing and upon perusing th ) grounds of appeal. the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materiz I papers in the Cases and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Rma Krishna Re:ly, Advocate for the Appellant in three MACMA's and of Smt P.Satya Manlul Advocate for the -Fi:sEz Respondent No.2 in all three MACMA's and none appeared for the respondent No.1, in all three I\IACMA Cases. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1 That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeals Nos.583, 5BB and 590 of 2020 be and hereby 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 inthis appeal. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REODY ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-Cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies ry, AS/T{VB HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.583, 588 & 590 of 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA'S WITHOUT I)OSTS \r, b