The High Court · 2025

3. Sri Ginjupalli Janardhana Rao, S/o. not known to the aPpellant _age..major, Occ. business Rlio. 3-136, back side of Laxmi Prasanna Theatre Nandigama, Krishna district.

4. M/s. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Corporate and Registered office at D.No.1 -4-86 Ramahal, KVS Temple Skeet, Jaggaiahpet, Krighna district ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Shyam S. Agrawal Counsel for the Respondent No. 4: Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu The Court made the following: ORDER I I i __-EF r. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M,A. C.M.A. No.1681of 2O24 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Shvam S. Agarual, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Somanchr Venkalt:su'arulu, learned counsel for rr:sPondent No.4. 2. This Writ Petition is filed by the unsuccessful clarmant being aggrieved l>1' the Arvard dated 29 'O2 '2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1 176 ol 201'l passed bt' learned IX Additional Chief Judge, Citl' Civil Cotrrt at Hvderabad (for short Trial Court'), dismissing lhe claim of thc claimant on the ground that the t:laiman t dicl not produce an)' material evidencemore pa.r'tii:u1arl-r' the chargeshcet ar-rd also other rgle.,,ant documents in support of his claim.

3. The facts leading to lile the claim petition are that on

09.08.2013 at 08.05 hours, the deceased / Abhimanyu rvas traveling in a car along u'itir his friends Ujw:i1 Verma and Gautham Reddy C in a vehicle bearing No AP28DF2700 Hyundai Verna ztnd q'hen thev reached near Outer Ring Road Near Chenamma hotel, the driver of one cement miller bearing No.AP16TY7598 tried to overtake the car from right side and hit the car No-AP28DF27OO from front side, on account of which, the car was badly damaged and I I { l I I 2 CPK J M.A.C M A.No l6al of 2024 inmates of the car sustained severe bleeding injuries. Immediately, they u,ere shifted to Trident hospital for frrst aid. ThereaJter, the1. u,ere shifted to Yashoda hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. Subsequently, one inmate of the car i.e., Abhimanl.'u succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Therefore, on account of rash and negligent driving ol the driver of cement miller bearing No.AP16TY7598, the claim was made before the learned Trial Court seeking the compensation of Rs.9,93,3O0/-.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6therein i.e. lnsurance Companv filed counter before the learned Trial Court denying the averments, stating that under Section 134(c) of the M.V.Act, it is the mandatory dirty of the owner of the cement millcr vehicle to furnish particulars i.e., date, time and place of the accident, narne of the driver, but has not complied with the statutory demand. Therefore, pleaded that the claim has to be dismissed.

5. Learned trial Court framed the following issues: " 11 Whether the accident occurred. on O9.08.2023 at about O8-OS hours tuas occurred due to the rash and negLigent cliuing of the diuer of the crime uehicle i.e., Cernent MilLer beaing No.AP16TY7598 causing injuies to the petitioner? !Bsl*.t5l o 3 GPK,.] V A C 11 A No 16al ol2024 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensatton' and, if so, to what quantum and from uhom? 3) To Luhot relk:P"

6. On behalf ol petitioner therein' PW' 1 Mr was examirlcd and Ex Al and lix A2 u'ere Ulu,alVerma markecl. Wht:reas, on behalf of resPondent No 6 therein' none \\/as cxamined , however Ex B 1 / copy of poiicy \ ,aS marked. 7. The learned Trial Court upon perusing the material averllableonrecordheldthat,thepetitionerthereinhas onl-y markecl clischarge summan' of Yashoda Hospital' issued under Ex.AI and trx'A2 and other documents ie ' FIR or chargesheet etc ' were not marked and does not appear lo have hted' Therefore, in the absence of FIR and chargesheet, it would be impossible for the Cor-trt to come to a couclusion as to on whose negligence the accident has been occurred. As such, the Court cannot fix any liability on any of the respondent for holding responsibility for the accident met by the petitioner therein Therefore ' in the absenceofrelevantdocuments'learnedTrialCourt dismissed the claim Petition' B On perusing the record, the iearned counsel for the appellant places reliance of a decision referred bv the 4 GPK.J M.A.C.M.A No 16At of 2024 ( Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in respect of Mac. App. No.515 ol 2OL7, C.M.Appl. No.1.5959 ol 2079, Mac.App.No.524 of 2Ol7 and C.M.App.No.22822 of 2Ol7 dated. 09.O1.2024 in the matter of Subosh Chander Sachdeurr and others v. Bochu Venkateshwar Rao and others, t u'herein, the issue involved in the claim petition filed by the claimants under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming that on 09.08.2023, at about O4.3O AM, the deceased Mr. Abhimanyr Sachdeva was driving his Verna car and was traveliing frc.'m RGI Airport, Cyberabad, to Gachibowli along with Ujwal Verma and Gautham Reddy C and when the car reached at Outer Ring Road, near Chenamma Hotel, a Cement Tanker bearing registration No.AP16TY7598/offending vehicle, which was being driven by Sh.Bochu Venkateshwar in a rash and negligent manner, hit the car of the deceased

9. Therefore, basing on the pleadings of the appellant, it is evident that the claim in MVOP r,o. 1176 of 2014 and theclaim made before the Hon'ble High Courtof Delhi in the matter of Subcsh Chander Sachdeurr (Supra) arise out of the same accident. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on

09.O1.2024, enhanced the compensation to that of 'MaNu/og/o tsslzozq I I -.-wgg ,ty r) 5 GPX,J I,IACUS\ot68lot2024 Rs 58,10,94O/- basing on the pieadings as well as the material availablt: before the learned High Courttherein' Thcrcfore, learne<l counsel prayed that on account of the sanr<: accident, learned High Court of Delhi has allor"'cd the clain-r and the present claim also has to be allolved' I 0 On perusal of the judgment passed b1' the learned Trial Court, no one was examined on behalf of the respondent i.e., r-reither the owner of the vehicle nor on behzrlf of the Insurance Company' Except the copy of policy, no other documents were marked' Whereas, learned corrnsel fbr the appellant relied upon the FIR dated 09.08.20i3 in Orime No.275 of 20 13 registered under Seo[lon 27g,337,3O4-A of IPC and also CC'No 98 of 2014 (old CC.No. 1145 of 2O13) dated 05'09 2014 L I . It is evidentfrom the facts that an opportunity of ptacing the relevant material has not been accorded b1' the learned Trial Court. Thereby, it is apparent on the face of the record that the claimant is to be afforded with an opportunity of producing relevant material to substantiate his claim. l:. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to set aside the or.der datecl 29.Cl2-2O24 passed by the learned Trial Court 6 GPX,J M.A C.M A.No.168l of 2024 in MVOP No.1176 of 2024 by remitting the matter back to the learned Trial Court to decide the matter afresh aJter affording an opportunity to both the parties to lead proper evidence.

13. [t is needless to mention that the learned Trial Court shall complete the said exercise as expeditiously S possible preferably within the period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I+. Subject to above observation and direction the M.A.C.M.A is disposed of. There shall be no order as to Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed SdL M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, KH

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' 2. One CC to Sri Shyam S. Agrawal, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT GPKJ DATED:1 011012025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1681 ot 2024 H1 E STAI c o )q1q (.. : 1 B \t[$ t spRTc + ."/ DISPOSING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,1v J