The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous A1 peaL is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for :; Lort 'MV ,\ctJ assailing the award passed in OP. No.435 o1' 200 l, dated

29.O9.2OO5 by the I Additional Motor Accidents Cl:L :ns Tribu nal, Nizamabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ.

2. Appellant is the respondent No.2, responden Nos. I ancl 2 are the petitioners and respondent No.3 is the respr, dent No- 1 in O.P.No.435 of 2001.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners have fi1: i O.P.No.435 of 2001 under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming c:c r rpensation of Rs.5 lakhs from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 [respor:< ent No-3 and appellant herein] jointly and severally with interest r[ the ral]e of 24o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 petitioners s;ta:ed that on 3O.O7.20OO at about 03.OO a.m. Shivanarayan:r -axrnan was standing on the side of the road near Drivers Hote l Perkit Village on Nagpur to Hyderabad road, at the same time : lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 driven by its driver in the rasl.r Lnd negligent I t]RMR, J MACMA No.357l of20O8 manner with high speed came from Hyderabad side and dashed Shivanarayana Laxman due to w'hich he fell dorvn and the front rvheel of the lorry ran o\rer him, resulting rvhich he received head injuries, admitted aL Governmcnt llospital Armoor u.lrcre he died while undergoing treatment on the same day at 04.OO a.m. The deceased was a labourer, earning a sum of Rs.6,O0O/- per month and contributing his entire earnings to the family.

5. Respondent No.3 - rcspondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

6. I Appellant - respondcnt No.2 llled counter and denied the agc, avocation of the deceased and further contended that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-3996, which is loaded with sand, stopped the lorry in the middle of the road near Perkit Chorastha, on that day, the deceased immediately jumped from the said lorry and while crossing the road the accident has taken place. As such the driver of the lorrv bearing No.AP 28-V-3996 is responsible for the accident and he do not possess vaiid driving license to drive the lorry.

6.2 Armoor police has registered a case in Crime No. 141 of 2OOO, dated 3O.O7.2OO0 against the driver of lorry bearing No.MH-3655. Passing number o[ the lorry is not clear and no lorry is existing with the passing number as per the hnal rcport of the pofice 3i r )

BIIMR. J 11'( v A No 3571 (,t 2008 Armoor, dated 30.1O.2001. Police Armoor has hltr e hnal rt:port under Section i73 of lhe Cr.P.C, before the Juclrr:rl First (llass MagistraLe at Armoor as vehicle un-detected.

6.3 Rcsponrle nls Nos.l and 2 - petilioners, filci rlairlr l)(rlriion against the owner and insurer of lorry bearing No l'l l-3 1-W 3'(>55, the above sai<l lorry rs nothing to do with the acct<lt I t atrd t hr:re is no policc record to show that the above said lorry is nvolved in the accidcnt- Respondents Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners, r'rght to havc takcn proper steps against the crime vehicle No.Ivll I 11655 :rn,1 not on the lorry that they have chosen uide MH 31-W l'i5 trnd pr:rved to dismiss tht r laim pelition. 7 . The learned Tribunal has framed the followittri ssucs: ' 1) Whcthcr the accident occurred duc to rash . r 1 negLqcnt drivingl of the lorry bearing No.MH 3l W 36r., r :veri il it i drivcrs? 2) Whcther the petitioners are entitled to compens, (,n? Il so t,) whal amount and from uhom? 3) To what retieP

8. Respondent No.1 - petitioner No.l is examrr, <l as PWI and also examincd PW2-B.Anjaney'ulu, PW3-B.Chart,i ttiah an,-l got marked Exs.Al to A4. Junior Assistant of appellar t - respondent No.2 is examined as RW1-Devrao Pawar and got m: :ked trxs.B1 to E'.J \- I : i 4ltL BRMR, J MACMA.No.357I of 20Oa

9. The learned Tribunal, after analysing the evidence of the parties with that of the documents has partly allowed the claim application by awarding compensation of Rs.3,35,OOO/ - with simple interest at the rate of 97o per annum lrom the date of lrling the original petition till the date of deposit, direcLing the appellant- respondent No.2 to deposit lhe compensation amount with intcrest thereon which is impugned in the appeal.

10.1 l-earned counsel for the appellant - lnsurance Company submits that the Tribunal ought to have hxed the liability on the owner of sand lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-3996 and on the deceased by considering the plea that the driver of the sand Iorry stoppcd in the middle of the road without following traffic rrles and without valid driving license ald that the deceased jumped from the sand loiry in the middle of the road to cross it ,"vithout observing the moving vehicles.

10.2 The learned Tribunal erred in not recognizing the facts that the FIR did not refer the lorry No.MH-3 1-W-3655 as the crime vehicle as the police have filed a hnal report that the crime vehicle is undetected ald the liability can only be attri buted to the owner of the lorry.

10.3 The learned Tribunal failed to observe that lorry bearing tlo.Mfi-g l-W-3655 was not involvecl in the accident and the s/ 11 IIRMR, J N[1Ol A.No.357 L of 2008 suspected crime iorry bearing No.MH-3655 was nol nsured $'rth the appellant - insurance company and prayed to alk,' ' the appeal.

11. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 anld ', - petitioncrs submits that thc Ie arned Tribunal has appreciated t I : facts of the case in proper perspective, rightly awarded the comF:nsation and no interference is called ior.

12. It is mentioned in the cause title of tLI( appeal that respondent No.3 is not a necessary party.

13. Heard learned counsel and perused the materi,l

14. Now the points ior consideration are: i) Whether the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - petitione -s have made out a case that the accident has occurre I due to the - negligence of driver of lorry bearing No.MFI'I I -W-3655 or MH-3655, if so? ii) Whether the award passed by the learned T:'i tunal sulfers from any perversity or illegality, if so, rl,r ,s it require interference of this Court or not. POINT NOs.1 and 2:

15. Ex.Al and Ex.B1 are the copies of the Fllt showing the involvqment of lorry bearing No.MH-3655. Ex.B2 is the letter \ addressed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Armo,r , to the Sub T 6/1r BRMR, J MACMA.No.3571 oI2008 Divisional Police Officer, Armoor seeking permission that passing number of the lorry is not clear since no eyewitness has noticed, no lorry is existing with the above said passing number [MH 3655] ancl sougl'rt permission to close the samc.

16. Final report [Ex.B3] is hled by the police Armoor under Section 173 of Cr.P.C dated 30. 10.20O1 in FIR No.14il200O holding that passing number of the 1orry MH 3655 is not clear, sincere efforts are made throughoul the year, no clucs have come forth regarding the vehicle number and no lorry is cxisting u,ith passing No.MH-3655 and permission is accorded to refer the case as undetected. Fu[l description of the lorry registralion is not given in the FIR [Exs.A1 and B1], which led to filing a finai report by police Armoor.

17. Complaint is given by Chakali Yadaiah on the date of accident at 1O.OO a.m., who is the driver of lorry bearing No.Ap-28 U 3996. Police Armoor have not taken steps to ascertain the correct description of the vehicle number for the reasons best known to them and the driver of the lorry is the best witness to speak about the accident and he neither choose to appear before the Court nor was examined by the respondent No.2 - insurarnce company. 7 lrl B]?MR, J 1.,1,,( \'4.No.3571 of 2008

18. Ex.A3 is thc registration particulars of the notor vehicle No.MH-31-W-3655 with engine No.692DO295> 05; chassis NO .364052505685.

19. The cvidencc of PWI [respondent No.1 hereinl s the samc as stated in the claim petition. In her cross examina: rn she stated that she has not filed any other case except the clall -r petilion and that she has not Iiled any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs. 1O,000/ per month. She denied the r; Lggestion that crime vehicle No.MH-W-3655 is not correct there ; ,y police have closed the case as un-detected and that Ex.A4 is a fl se documcnt.

20. 1 Pw2-B.Anjaney'ulu is an eye witness to the t r cident and he deposed that on 3O.O7.2OOO at abont O3.OO a.m. accident has taken place at Perkit cross road. Himself, Laxmar-r rere returning froirr Velporc in a lorry after loading the sand. L: -ry driver has stopped the lorry near a hotel at Perkit and they a.J got dou.n and standing by the side of the road near a hotel to '.t ke tea, a.t the same time lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 catre in rash and negligent manner, dashed Laxman, front wheel c I the 1orry ran over Laxman, sustained multiple and grave injuries, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Armoor, where he died. Tlr y were getting Rs.200/- as wages per day. E-- '. I I I t a/ tt BRMR, J MACMA. No.357l of 2OO8 2O.2 lo his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the complaint lodged by Ch.Yadaiah shou,s the crime vehicle number as MH-3655 and that lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655 is not at all involved in the accide nt. 2 1 . 1 The evidence of RW 1 is that the claim petition is lrled against lorry bearing No.MH-31-W-3655, neither the vehicle in the FIR nor thc vehicle in the claim petition was registered insured with rcspondent No.2-insurance company and respondent No.2 is not liablc to pal the compensation.

21.2 In his cross examination, he stated that in Ex.A3-enginc No.692DO29511O5 and chassis No.364052505685 was insurcd with National Insurance Company under policy No.158881 tor the period from 06.04.2000 to 05.04.2001 and the vehicle is shou'n as MH 3 i-W-3655, the owner is shown as Shri Charanjeet Singh and Ex.A3 is issued by RTO Nagpur, he do not know whethcr the police investigated the case properly or not and they got filed Exs.B2 and 83 without proper investigation. He denied the suggestion that in collusion with insurance company and owner of the lorry, Exs.B2 and 83 were filed.

22. The evidence of PW2, who is an eye witness to the incident suppolts the claim of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 - petitioners with regard to the manner in which the accident has taken place at 9/rl I}IIN{R, J I1,' ( \4A.No.3571 cf 2008 Perkit. The learned rribunar has rightry observed tha the driver of the lorry is thc best witncss to spcak about the a,:, ident and he neither choose to appear before the Court nor was it;r rnirted bv the respondent No.2 insurancc company. It is th: c:rse ol- thc appellant insurance company thar the deceased jL I rpecl fronr his Iorry and while crossing the road the alleged accir I nt has t:rken place. No such suggestion is put to cither pWl or p\.t .

23. The evidcnce adduced by rhe respondent ll s.l alrd 2 _ petitioners go(-.s to show that the accident occurr( < due to rash and negligcnt driving of the driver of the lorry beari ,g No.MH 3 1_ W-3655 on 03.07.2OOO at 03.0O a.m. Hence the resp, ndents Nos. I and 2- petitioners could able to prove that thc accident has occurred with lorryr bearing No. MH-3 l -W-365S.

24." It is the evidence of pW1 that deceased :sed to earn Rs.6,OOO/- per month, u,hich is also supported by )e eviden<;e of PW2, who is a co-labourer. The evidence of pU i is that the deceased Laxman was doing coolie work, earning Rs. lO0/_ per day and contributing his entire income to the responden t \ios. I aru) 2 _ petitioners. Ex.A4 is the income certificate got issued by he Sarpzrnch dated 05.05.2002 which shows that the deceascrl was earning Rs. 1O,O00/- per month. The learncd Tribunal hi r treated the I I I i ! ! I I 1 I I i i I i I ! I I to/ 11 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3571 of 2008 deceased as unskilled labour and his incorne is fixed at Rs.10,000/ per month as minimum wages and taken 26 days in a month and arrived at Rs.31,20O/- per annum [100 x 26 x 12]. Tribunal has taken that the deceased is in the age group of 40 ro 45 years and the appropriate muttiplier is taken as .15'as per the second schedule to Section 163-4 of MV Act and deducted 1/3.d towards his personal expenditure r.e., 3l,2OO x15 = Rs.4,68,OO0/ and 1/3rcr deduction is Rs. 1,56,OO0/-, then loss of dependency arrived at Rs.3,12,000/- [4,68,000 - 1,56,000]. Further, awarded Rs.2O,OOO/ towards compensation for loss of consortium to respondents No. I petition No.1, Rs.5O0/- towards transport expenses ald Rs.2,SOO/- towards funeral expenses. The total compensation arrived by the learned Tribunal is Rs.3,35,OO0/-. 26: The appcliant - insurance company has not made out any case to interfere with the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.435 of 2OOl dated 29.09.2005. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the learned Tribunal does not require interference of this Court. Appeal lack merits, deserves no consideration and the sarne is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Hence points are answered accordingly.

27. In the result, MACMA is disrnissed u,ithout cost. 11/r1 I]RMR, J N I )MA.No.3571 ol2008 Interim orders if any stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/ s stands closed Sd/. 1\ . JAWAHAR REDDY ASI; STANT REGISTRAR - -, , //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, lvlotor ,/rccident Claims Tribunal-cum-l '\ ditional District Judge, Nizamabad. (With records)

2. One CC to Sri. V Sambasiva Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies

411.kv R/DL HIGH COURT DATEDI2711012025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3571 of 2008 { t [,] Og l'lAR zME I DISMISSED t' 1 q )b \ t I t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD IMONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 3571 OF 2008 Between: The National lgyl nce Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Manager, 5-8-79912, lstfloor, B. Laxmiraj Complei, Jawahar Road, Ni-zamabad. ...AppellanURespondent No. AND

1. Shivanarayana Mallamma, W/o Shivanarayana Laxman, Occ: House Wife R/o Byathol Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District.

2. Sujatha, D/o Shivanarayana Laxman, Occ: House Wife R/o Byathol Vi age, Sangareddy lVandal, tMedak Diskict. 3 th.qr?ryg.et-9t1S!, S/9 Bhagat Singh, Occ: Business and Owner of Lorry No. M.H.31W. 3655 Rl/o Op. Octroi Naka No.10, Amaravathi Road, Nagpur. (R3 Not Necessary in this appeal) ...RespondenURespondent -1 Appeal filed under Sectron 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 29.09.2005 passed in O.P.No.435 of 2001 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. 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 Sri. V Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri P Radhive Reddy, Advocate appeared for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Respondent No.3 Not necessary. 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 .P7

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal- Sd/.. li. JAWAHAR REDDY ' ASS; STANT REGISTRAR /ilF {roru OFFICER SE //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l l,r ditional District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. Two CD Copies KVR/DLb. HIGH COURT DATED:2711012025 DECREE MACMA.No.3571 of 2008 c) a * lHE S It I 'i F I lirt ltg25 z rj)I FAl (.,1 DISMISSED I q v