The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 OF CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the Judgment and Decree dated 19-3-2014 made in OP NO. 1690 of 2011 on the file of the Chairman MACT-Cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Counsel for the Appellant: A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent NO.1: p RADHIKA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT -![,.- "- -lar*:- {!aE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No.4284 of 2Ol4 JUDGMENT: 'lire prcscnL appearl is liled b1, the zrl)pcll:ult-irsrrrancc Contparny, aggncved b1, the Au'ard datecl I().03.20l4 in N4.V.O.l']. No.1690 of 20 11, passed by thc lcarncd Chairrnar-r, MoLor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum IX Additional Cl-ricl Judge , City Civil Cor-rrl, I{y<1e rabad (for short 'Tribunal').

2. 'l'[re appellzrr-rL hcrcin rs the rcspondent No.2, resporrdcnl No. L is the pc titione r/ cleLiman L and resllondent No.2 is rcspondcnt No. 1, before the Tribunal.

3. I'lcard Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, lcarncd Counsel hr tht: appellant, Ms.i'].Raclhika, Iearned Counsel [or rcspor-rdent N(). 1 and Sn I(.Srit-tiv:rsa Prasad, learned Counsel lbr rcsporrclcnt No.2.

4. 'l'he brief facts of the casc, '"r,I-rich Ied lo filing ol' tl-re present appcal, are that respondent No. 1 lilccl claim pctition uide M.V.O.P.No,1690 of 201.1, sccking compensation ol Iis.13,OO,OO0/-, on account o1- injurics sustained in a road accident that tool( place on 14.03.2011. On 1.1.03.2011 at about 4.3O PM, r.vl-rilc rcspondent No.l was rcturning back t<; his residence and when he reached nc;rr Bharzrth garciens, onc a 1 '' "i' ' ;:"" " l l,-'roiorc]-cic bi: -ri inq llo.AP 2c) B.l 373 i (Crinre \ t Jricle) comurg - fr',;rn LS.il:,:i,,lt lo (iltlL-t-t1tnt:r'1, rvhicl-r \\'zts (iri\'('rl ,L-t :, tesll ettld ncqlillcLrL irlrillnei ir1 lligh sl)co(1, dashcd tltt: it:; ,rln,-icrrt No i. r\s a t-cs;uit, LI c' r'cspott:lcl-tl No. 1 ll:ll ot-r th.: l-o:rr i rtd sL'tst:rirled qr-icvous injr.t; r:s ull ovcr lll,: lrr.,dy, lhal he t,'ar; l,i ll[t:rl ro Apolk-r I)RD() r:s1:.a1. li:rrtcha'-rbitqh, L{1'dt:rzrb:id: 1'2rt I'olir;e' of c.1 a casc la ,l -intc \o.85 Lri Sarciabaci l)o:ir:c lltat ion rcgi !i 201 i ur-rCcr. :iccuon .1.17 ol' II)C argritl:jt [[r'l drr' r I oI t rc <:iitllc vr:lr ic: lc :) Thr: :r's.ponclc-nt hlo. I lilccl clltiin pcLil,iotl rtt.cCtP No.l(r!rO ol 20 I i. br:lirlc Lhc 'i'r'ilrunal and averred that h : \\ras carlllng a surn of IRs.1.',,O007i l)er month tl-rrougl-r Real l'l lLa1.e busillcss arrcl Agrict ltr Lrc artd he u'as also an lncorrtc 'l :,x Asse ssee and thus, clainLecl lt suttr oI Rs.13,00,000/- as comp( I :jatioll (). Be lo c thc 'l'ribltrtal, on bchalf ) respondcnL No.l/clain-:rrr , P.Ws.1 to 9 n,crc examined ancl l)xs.,Al to A12, s'cre marl<r:cl. OIt bchalf ol appellanL, R.W. I rva; t:xamtned and lixs.Bl artrl []2 u,erc tnarked.

7. TI-rc 'l'ribrtual on duc consideration of oral and documcnte,ry evidcnce placcd on record, par.l' allowed the clerim petitio:r and awarded compensation rl Rs.9,17,O19/- alrrrrg u'rth inl.rcst 'ti)7o/o per annum f rom the dal" of Detilion ti11 rcillizatior'1 artcl lastcncd liabilitl' on appellant I rd respondcnt .=w -) No.2 jointly and severally. Aggricved by the same, prcscnt appcal has bcen filed by Insurance Company.

8. The learned Counsel [or the appellant principally contendcd thaL therc u,as dela), of six days in lodging the conplarnt i-e ., accidcnt Look place on 14.03.20 1 1, u'hcrcas, compiaint ri'as lodgecl on 20.03.201 1. He furthcr contencieci that initiall-r- case r\,as rcgistcrcd against unknou't-t vchiclc and subsequenlly, crime vel-ricle u.as brought into exislence only for t,he purpose of compcnsation. It is also contended that Tribur-ral {ailed to consider the ratio laid dorvn by this Court in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. ys. Bhoomireddg Venkata Sdtgd Ra,rnrr Rao,r wherein this Court held thal if thcre is apprcciable gap of time in lodging cornplaint lrom the datc of accident it's evidentiary value is vcry less. It is further contendcd that thc Tribr-rnal has considercd lhe monthly irlconrc cf re spondent No.1 as Rs.6,000/- per month, rvithout tl'ierc being an1' evidencc and s'ithout considering the fact lhai respondent No.1 was aged about 65 years and that the amount avvarded by thc Tribunal is exorbitant. Thereforc, prayed to allon, the present appeal.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 ivouid submit lhat respondent No.1/claimant sustained severe injuries ' zoog (4) TAC 484 t. * :€!-.. ,,r,] . \, \- -r- .1 it't the:rcct,lent ancl he \\.as trcated for t5e i1 r ,_rcs _sustainecl by him ar-r j lrcrcfor-c, tltcr.c s.as dcla1, of six rlrr,, s in lodging thc cornplaint tnrl in f zrr:t, tirc Tribunal has dis .r rsscri this aspect a.rd has fi*ltth, 1.e111g Lo c(.)itclusion titat r.lclar lL rcl .r.curred .nly on acc()Llt-t of trr:arrncnt bcing taken bf t r.spo1ldent No. 1, lherelorrt, lltc cont(,ltlion ol thc appellant. can I t ltl l:onsidercd. Sl-rc lur:hr.. subrrittr:d rhat respondenl Nrr hzis submitted Income T:Lx Rctr:t-rrs ir.r proof of his incortrr. lrs per u,hich rcspondeni No. 1 ,,vas elrning a sum of li:,. I ,1(r,()00/_ from Agricultrrreil storcs, Ils.1,24,500/_ frorrI brrsiness and Rs.1,50.()(-) )/ lr-r,111 |11111s6, propert\,, holr.cvcr_ I tc sarle \\ras not i:onsiclerr:cl b-t, tlti. li-iltunal and had tal<r.l l.rco:ne of the respondent No. 1 as oDl-r Rs.6,O0O/_ per moI I .l,lrcrefore, .the contentions raisr.cl by the appellant are ur I,naltl: and the appcal is iieLl;ic to lrc clisrnLssecl. 1O. Perusr,rl ol thc rcr:ord u,ould disclose thzl t (.sl)ot rdent No. 1 u'as agcrl irbout (r5 1,ears and u,as gettir)it income from agricultural stores, Irusiness and house propel--\. in p:oof of lhe samc he sullnittccl Incontc T ( Returns, u,lrir:lr rvas rnarked as trx.A12. [t :rppe.trs that Tribunal u,ithout cor s idcring Income Tax Retut-r.rs. has considered monthly incornr :rs Rs;.6,OOO/-, which ir-r cor-rsiclcrrrcl opinion of this Court i; less than the incomc of responcrr:nt No.1, therefore, this corrr.t rs noI inclined to r.nterfcre iri t h t hc As'arcl in so far as nt( ) r llr. ircome is E!!E-r-rI-. .:-:I':=.*-'is--"-"=r/ -*..F' -7 5 concerncd. Anothcr contention raised by the appellant is u,ith regz,rrd to del:rf in lodging the complaint belore lhe Policc, Admittcdly.', rcspondent No.1 sustained multiple grievous Lnjuries in the ucciclent and was shiltecl to hospital rrnd undertakcn trealment, thcrefore, respondcnt .No.1 could r.rot immediaLcly lodgc complaint with r-hc Police and has lodged complainI after six days, which cannot be considered as abnonnztl clc 1a\,. 1 1. I1 is reler.ant lo relcr to Judgment o[ the Hon'ble Apex Conr-L in casr: of S.K.M.Haider Vs. Union of India and others2, r.r'herein ir s'as held that as follou,s It is tueLl settLed that cielag in Lodgitg FIR cannot be a qround to doubt the clairrtant's case. Knouing the Indtan cottditiorts cLs they are, u)e cennot expect a common tnatl to first ntsh to the Police Statiotl tmmedtatelg after on accident. fluman nature and family responsibllities occupA the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that theq giue ntore importctnce to get the uictim treated rather tltan to ntsh to the police station. Under such circumstcutces, they are not expected to act mechanicallg tu[th prontptiLude in lodging the I.-IR tuith the police. Delay irt lodging thc FIR thus, cannot be the ground to delay jtt stice to tlrc uictim.

12. Admittedh', in thc present case, respondent No,1 sustaincd grier",ous injuries and he was shifted to hospital lor trcatmcnl, thercfbre, he Ioclgcd complaint after six days which cannot be considcrcd as abnortnal clelay. Therefore, in the light 2 zot t 1.r1 scc zoo () ..'; Y,.-r.*---siE _.i ..: **jr_. ',.,.{F'-' .\ \-.\. oi r':rtio lai,i :lou,n lrr. tirc liou bic l\l)cx CoLii t :r r als( thc iaci ti-rat r.lciaf is orrlv ol six d:i.t's in [oclginr 1]r, rrmp1:rin1, thc contc;rtion ;:rsi:cl br tlrr' :Lppcllant rt'ith ;r'r1t r . io dclzri in lodging thc: t:lnrplaint is rtrtllLrablc ittrcl is rt:ji:r:ri r Drct'pl ltbovcr t\\o (:o11[el]lir]ns, no oLlrar COntcllti,:rn arc i( \irn(tac bV lhc appcllanL. Ir-t vjcrv ol tlrc al;ovr: rliscrt:;siot.t. thc rro;r''i is ilis:rrisscti i3. and ih'.-' Arvar :l 1.:assccl br, lltcl'i'rilttlnal in ().1)i\ r 169(; o1 2011 clatctl l!1.03 .rO1.1. r'rr:eds tto ilttcr'1ct-cttcc. li t i sltiill l)(' r.lo Or dcr- as L() cos1s. Misccllarri:ous l)ctitiolr-'r 1lcrrtling, if irn'. sh:rll sLiLr,rts closcrl. t ( SD/- S M JAWAHR REDDY /s JANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I SECTION OFFICER To, Hyderabad. 1 The chairman l\4ACT-cum-rX Additionar chief Judge c ity civrr court, at 2 One CC to SP.t A RAN/AKR|SHNA REDDY Advocate [CF UC] 3. One CC to SRI P RADHTKA Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies GIt z -.:--. :::.'--' a\i- : -.-.- -. \'\ ..-'- :5, :: : nt c '.:. )\, ' . ,,rt 1S 'i .1..'. ,a 1' \ \u- 'J' --' -:1, , ,! . -l ,,r r-l -. \ i,. '1'.".-,1.('-: -.' ''. ;'. -! .;:- ' HIGH COURT DATED:02 tO912025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.4284 of 2014 I i'. t'i i,.-' DISMISSING THE MACMA /t. /3 /o,t4 s IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4284 OF 2014 Between: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD, Rep.by its Regional Manager, Regional Office, at 608 and 609, 6th floor, 2nd block, Whtte house, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2 AND

1. GADDAM ANJI REDDY, S/o G Mutrm Reddy, aged about 65 years, Occ Business cum agrl, Rio.1 7-1-383/M/9. lvlanoharnagar, Vinayanagar colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT NO.IiPETITIONER NO.1

2. E Bharathi Reddy, S/o not known, aged major, Occ Owner of the vehicle, Bearing No. AP-29-BJ-3731, R/o. Plot No.65 Vanasthalipuram Complex, Va nasthalipu ram, R.R.District. .RESPONDENT NO.2/PETITIONER NO.2 Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1690 of 2011 dated. 19-03-2014 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- Cum-lX Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad. ORDER: 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 arguments of Sri A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt P RADHIKA, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal in OP No. 1690 ol 2011, dated 19/03/20 14, needs no interference. 2 That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of ttre Tribu,ral shall stands confirmed in all cther respects; and 3 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- SIII ivl JAWAHR REDDY ASIiIS;TANT REGISTRAR 7 //TRUE COPY// SECI'ION OFFICER To, (iR 1 The Chairman lvlACT-Cum-lX Additional Chief Judge C iiy Ci,, I Court, at Hyderabad. 2 Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.4284 ot 2014 DISMISSING THE MACMA 4 4,4 tt4 ,/:; ,/zo