The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI{A YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.18OS OF 2012 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, sri N.s.Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2006, passed 1n o.P.No.315 of 2oo2 by the learned chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Vl Additional District Judge, Nizamabad., Kamareddy (for short, the TribunalJ.

3. The appellant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 1,5o,ooo / - for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 2o.ol.2oo2 in the limits of Jangampally Village. on the said date, appellant and one M.Narsaiah, M.Sattamma @ Sat5rawa, M.Sayawa were traveling in an auto bearing No.AP 2sT TgZ L from Lingupally to Kamareddy. when the auto reached near stone crusher in the limits of Jangampally village at about 6.00 pm, the driver of the auto driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner and L-/ 2 lost control and the auto turned turtle. The appellant sustained multiple injuries including fracture of right 1.g, fracture of chest, fracture of ribs, fracture of skull and injuries to both the legs. Hence, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation. The appellant got himself examined as P.W.l and got marked Exs.Al to A5. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not prove that he sustained injuries in the accident and therefore, dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

4. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the oral and documentar5r evidence while concluding that the appellant has not proven his injuries being sustained in a road traffic accident. As such, prayed that the appeal be allowed and compensation be granted.

5. When the record is perused, it is seen that FIR is lodged on 2O.OL.2OO2 by one M.Narsaiah informing about the injuries sustained by his wife in the accident that occurred on account \ 3 of rash and negligent driving of auto driver. Further, the appellant is shown to be a.n eye witness to the accident but not as injured. The police filed charge sheet against the auto driver und.er Sections 337 and 338 of IPC. Further, there is no injured in the evidence to show that the appellant is €ln \ \ accident. Except the self serving oral evidence of the appellant, there is no evidence to prove that he sustained injuries in the \ \ accident. In the absence of supporting evidence, merely on the basis of oral evidence of the appellant, compensation cannot be granted. It is further pertinent to note tllat the appellant is claiming to have sustained multiple injuries which include fracture of right leg, fracture of chest, fracture of ribs, fracture of skull and other injuries. However, the injury certificate on which the appellant chose to rely upon shows that he had sustained only three simple injuries. This contradiction shows that the appetlant is showing exaggerated injuries to take advantage of social welfare legislation and such attempts have to be curtailed. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. I I ! : , i I i I I I I { I I i I : il' 4

6. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed ,/TRUE COPY" SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT ON OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, Kamareddy. (With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N S BHASKARA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies w ,* i HIGH COURT DATED:071O712025 ?; :r JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1805 of 2012 [2 DRAFTSI MACMA IS DISMISSED \u '-D b -r IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE I PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA 12 Between: fogula Siddaiah, S/o.Pochaiah Agriculture, Running Bullock Cart on hire basis R/o.Lingupalli Village, Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District. .AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Mr. B.Narsaiah, S/o.B.Dharmaiah, Aged Major Owner of Auto No.AP 25 T 7971 R/o.H.No.6-34, Bhiknoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. (R1-Disl for default vide C.O. Dt:141912O11)

2. United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, rep by its Divisional Manager Olo.Station Road, Kamareddy. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2002 dated.09/06/2006 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Fast Track Court, Nizamabad, Kamareddy. 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 SRl. S.Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of N S BHASKARA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. and none appeared 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;

2. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and 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 //TRUE COPYII qD/- M. OSMAN ALt BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OFFICER ( To, 1' The chairman, Motor Accident ctaims Tribunar-cum- Fast rrack court, 2. Two CD Copies Nizam'abad, Kamareddy. (With records, if any) lny- F ,/ HIGH COURT DATEDi07lAT12025 DEGREE MACMA.No.1805 of 2012 MACMA IS DISMISSED b