The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKII YARA M.A.C. M.A.No. 1487 of 2O23 JUDGMENT: I{eardSriA.RamakrishnaReddy,learnedslzndirrgct>unscl for the appellar-rt/ Insurance company and K' Verr <atesh (iupta' learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant' Pert sed the entire record.

2. Aggrieved b1 the au'ard passed by the learr ed Chairman' Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Di; .rict Judge' at Mahabubnagar (for shortthe Tribunal') in M'V'O'P 'lo'52 of 2019' datecll2.09.2023,Lheappellant/respondentNo'3:hallengedthe finding of the Tribunal on the ground of false imp lication of the lorry, failure on the part of the respondent No.1/clt mar-It to prove the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing N.- AP-16-T-0252 and delaf in lodging the complaint.

3. The brief facts of the case are that ot 2' '01'2018, the accident occurred rt'he n the claimant went to do co rli work at his held. On that day, the claimant dragged electri': wire betrveen electric poles rvhich is located between the agrictL tural lands of Kodigarti Chaldraiah and Edigi Laxmaiah and rt between the poles, there is a road. The petitioner was on pole a 4 pm and one l Iorry bearing No.AP 16-T 0252 driven bf its driver with high speed in rash ald negligent manner came from Theegalapaliy and dragged the electric wire u,hereby the electric 'vvire touched to 1 1 IiV u'ire, current passed through the wire causing electrocu[ion of the claimant. Due to electrocution, the claimant fell down on a stoltc bar from the electric pole and sustained bleeding injuries to his right leg and jaw. Immediately, the rvife of the claimant and claimant's brother took him to SVS Hospital, Mal-rabubnagar for treatment and then to NIMS, Hyderabad for better treatment Though the accident occurred on 24.01.2018, the complaint rvas lodged on 19.O3.20 18 i.e. after more than 50 days of occurrence of the accident. The reference is made to the evidence led by the claimant about first being admitted in SVS Hospital on 24.O7.2O18 and then discharged on25.Ol.2Ol8 and again, he lr'as admitted in NIMS Hospital on 19.02.2018 and was discharged on 26.O2.2018, but the complaint was lodged on 19.O3.2018.

4. The claimant emphasized that there were gaps between time periods of hospitalization of the claimant and u'hen he u'as finally discharged ot 26.02.20 18, there is no reason for delay in lodging the complaint on 19.03.2018. According to the appellant, this gap shows that there is collusion between the claimant and the owner/ respondent. Further, it is emphasized that there was no 4 ./ vehicle involved ir-r the accident and the sequence rf events u,hich led to the accident cannot be construed as a roac traJfic accident The offending lorry merely dragged al electric ,i;6 11'[i6fi 1v21s negiigentll. laid on the road and due to the movenr:nt of lorry, the electric wire Lorrched I 1 KV wire and therebl', t re claimant got electrocuted and lell dou,n. The claimant question: I the spreading of electric u'ires on the ground while carrying orr repairing work u'ithout any siqnal and therefore, denied li rbilitl, to pay compensation, lnore particularly, as there was no n:gligence on the part of the driver of the lorry

5. A perusal of the record shows that the rruident occurred u,hen a person by name Kodiganti ChandraizL r engaged the claimant to dras. electric wires to his agriculturzr field. In that process, the claimalt has draw'n the r.l.ire from e1e', tric pole and it was laid on the road. Whcn the lorry was passing th'ough said road and was driven on the wires, said wires got drag11 d and touched the 1l KV wire and thereby, the claimant got elec- ocuted and fell down from the electric pole. In this regard, the cross examination ol the claimant as PW1 is crucial. Said crucial evide r .ce is extracted and produced belor.l, I t is not a road accident. One Kodiganti I hanclraiah " engaged me as a coolie to pull electric wires from he electric I I I I i l i I 1 i I I I i I I I I i I I 5 pole to the fields of Kodiganti Chandraiah. No personnel of the Electriciry Department are present at that p1ace. I climbed up the clectric pole. The electric ',r,ires are laid on the road. No precautionary boards are erected at that place. Chandraiah did not obtain any permission from the Electricity Department to disconnect the electricity supply at the relcvant timc. Witncss adds that the transformer was switched off. It is true the Lorry passed on the electric wires and touched the llKV wire and due to that I was subjected to electrocution and fell dou'r'r on the ground from the pole."

6. Firstlv, the above evidence shows that the electric u.ires w,ere laid on the road without erecting precautionary boards. No permission was taken from the Electricity Depa,rtment for disconnecting electric supply at the relevant time. The claimalt fell dorvn from electric pole due to electrocution but on account of any road traffic accident. The only incidental event in this whole sequence is that the offending lorry allegedly passed on the eiectric wires which were laid on the road. Said event can by no stretch of imagination be categorized as rash and negligent driving. The driver of the iorry would hardly have knowledge that the wires laid on the road may have electric supply or that they made lead to electrocution when such wires come into contact with live I 1 KV u,ires. The lorry was proceeding in norma-l course on the road. There is also probability that the lorry driver would not observe rvires laid on the road and was passing normally. Hence, sequence \' .r' \?" t l i 6 .,/' of events leading to electrocution of the claimant ,l les not inspire confidence to catcgorize the incident as one resul ng out of rash and negligent driving 7 . The seconrl poir-rt whrch raises doubt about 1l rc genuineness of the version presented bv the clarmant is the tirr e gap between the date of incjdent and date of lodging complai rt. As per the evidence adduct:d by the claimant (PW1) himsell he was first admitted in the hospital on 21.01.2018 and u,as clischarged on

25.O1.2018 i.e. u'ithin a period of one day. Thereer1i: -, the claimant was again hospitalized on l9.O2.2OlB and u'as lischarged on 26 .O2 .2O1a . There was a gap of 2 5 days bei veen the first hospitalization and second hospitalization during ',, hicl.r time, the claimant was in Mahabubnagar but did not choose .,, Iile complaint by himself or through aly of his relatives. Furth rr, after being hospitalized at NtMS on 19.O2.2OlB, and discharge,l on 26.O2.2O8, there was a gap of 21 days by 19.03.2018, the Cay on which complaint is lodged. There is no plausible explanatrr, r for not giving complaint during the time period of gaps between two hospitalizations arrd lodging of complaint. Thirdly, ar per discharge summary/Ex.A4, the claimant was admitted due -, electrocution and fall from arr electric pole. There is no men t on about the involvement of lorry for the electrocution. Therefore, 1.his sequence 1 of events has given rise to a valid ground for the appellant/ Insurance company to question the genuineness of the accident on account of involvement of the lorry and its liability to pal' compensatlon B. When the claimant has himself admitted that he was engaged for drawing eiectric wires to the agricultural fields Kodiganti Chaldrarah, that no permission was obtained for drawing electric u'ires, said act on one hand amounts to a criminal offence for drau'ing electric u,ires without knowledge of the Electricity Department and r,r'ithout disconnecting the electric supply during relevant time period apart from being an act of self-negligence, u,here the claimant risked his own life.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the incident of the claimant's fall from the electric pole carnot be categorized as a road tra-ffic accident much less one that is arising from rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-O252. On the prima facie belief that the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252 was involved in the accident, as per the version presented by PW2, who is an eye witness to the accident, only no fault liability can be attributed to the incident and no more. The claimalt is not entitled to payment of compensation ,/_ 8 'under Section 166 of M.V.Act and therefore, thc finding of the Tribunal is liab1e to be set aside

10. Accordingl-v. the MACMA is perrtly allowed an: the claitlant is ai.r,arcled Rs.25.000/ under Section 140 of M.\.Act. The said amount shall carry interest at 9(Zo per arlnum t r tm the date of petition tili the date ol realization. The app. lant/lnsurance company shall cleposit the arnount \r,ithin a period :'(8) w,eeks from the clate of receipt of copy o[ this judgment. Or such cleposit, ciaimant is entitled to withdrau, the entire it nount u,ithout furnishing the security. The amount, if any, dr cosited by the appeliant/ Insurance company in excess of the z I ,ove mentioned awarded amount shall be returned to them. There ; rall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in t r s appeal, shall stand closed. To, SN/. A.H.I; GOWRI SHANKAR -- 'Assr iTANT REGISTRAR 9- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 TheMotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-9um-'PrircipalDistrict ift;;;i rvrln"ornn"g"r(with records if anv) One CC to SRI A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate ('PUCI One CC to SRI KVENKATESH GUPTAAdvocate [OPl C] 2 3 4. Two CD Copies ASR/GR it'r HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1487 of 2023 I ,J -f V,'\\ oR THE S?4 'c 2I JAii 2n25 * fc'a PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL ^rr0-

0.d,# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IHURSDAY. THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 1487 OF 2023 Between Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co Lld. Represented by its Autho^rrzed Slijn'atory, lst Floor Bhuvana Towers, S D Road, Secunderabad - 500 003 ... AND APPELLANT/ResPondent No.3

1. Ananthaiah @ Chakali Ananthaiah, S/o ChakaliAnjaneyulu,.Age-. 41 years, Occ. Coolie,F/o H.No.2-129l1, lpponibavi, H/o Theegalapally Village, Nawabpet trland al, Mahabubnagar District. 1 ..... ResPondentNo.1/Petitioner

2. Kotla Prabhakar Redd of Lorry beanng No. A Town Laxman Chintala, S/o C. Keshavulu, Age. Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry beartng No. AP 16 T 0252, Rlo H.No.1-1-9/E, New l\/othinagar, Mahabubnagar Town S/o Ramchandra Reddy, Age.53 years, Occ. Drtver 16f 0252, R/o B K Reddy Colqny, Mahabubnagar v P 3 RESPONDENT Nos.2 & 3/Respondent Nos.1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V Act, against the Order and decree dated 12-09-2023 passed in M.V O.P.No.52 OF 2019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accrdents Claims Tribunal - Cum - Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar. ORDER: 'l his appcal coming ou tbr hearing' upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgmcnr and Decrcc o1'the Lorvcr Appcllate Courtand the Court ofthe First instancc and the material papers in thc Suit and upon hearing the argulnents of Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate lor the Appellant and of Sri K. Venkatcsh Gupt, Advocate fbr the Respondent No. l. Thal this Court doth Order and Decrce as fbllorvs; lhat this Court parrll allowing the appcrl arvarded Rs.25.0[,0/ lnLicr Secrion l,l0 of M,V. Act. l .} l hat the sri(t .rr,,ur( .h,1ll ( the date ofrcalil..rtron. )arD Intclest al 99/o per annulr li()r ' Ihe tlillc of1'ctirron till 3 That thc appc'a'r/ln5nl6ngs Corrrpanl sha, tJeposir the arnou, u itrr, a periocl o1.g 4 fhat on such dc,rsir. crairnant is cntitred to * ithdra*.rhe enti. rrrorrt witrr.uI 5- 'fhat u,eeks liorn thc date ofreccipt ol-copv ol. th is.judqme nt. the abovc mcltiL)ned arr arded arnount shall bc rcturned [o theur. the amotrnr. il-anr. depositcd b} the a ppellant/l n surancc c j rnan\ in exccss ol therc shall lte rto order as to eosts. l-urnish ing thc secLrritr.

6. 'Ihat i/TRtre Lopy /l SD/. i$sisi^"^Ht='S,tT[il ? secTl {).1 OFFIC€R tb, I?:,iiijTil" ii,flij:;j3t:i:;,ffi ,T::;r3, i 2 Two CD Copies )u1r - princiRat . ASR/GR UA(- ( HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 DECREE MACMA.No.1487 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL cS*-