The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2O16 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgmentJ passed by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Principat District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (hcreinafter will be referred as Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.868 of 2013, the Appellant, u,ho is the sole respondent/ owner o[ the crime vehicle filed the present Appeal to set aside tht: impugned judgment.

2. For the sake of convenience, t\e parties ht:reinafter are referred as they were arrayed beiore the Tribunal

The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under: a) The pctitioners filed claim petition under Scction i66 of the Motor Vchicle Act claiming compensation ol Rs, 1O,00,0OO/ - against the sole respondent for the death of their family member in the road trafhc accident that occurred on 10.09.2012. The \pelitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 1o 4 are the children of Sri P. Ramulu (hereinafter will be referred as 2 'deceased'). The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death of the deceased is that on 1O.O9.2O12 at about 3.00 pM while the deceased was proceeding by walk from Malkajgiri X Roads towards his house situated at Venkateshwara Nagar, at Hp Petrol Pump at Yadav Nagar, Malkajgiri, the rider of TVS XL Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 29 Ae 1805 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injury apart from other injuries all over the body. The deceased was shifted to LK Hospital, Malkajgiri for first aid and then to Sai VAni Hospital, Domalguda, wherein he was treated as inpatient on 1O.O9.2012 and discharged on 'lt.O9.2O12. But the deceased succumbed to the injuries at his residence on

19.O9.2012 at abour 7.3O PM. b) A case in Crime No.4O5 of 2Ot2 ot Malkajgiri police Station was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for the offence under Section 332 of the Indian penal Code and later Section of law was altered to Section 304-4, of the Indian Penal Code. 3 c) Due to the accident, the petitioners suffered with mental I agony and their hope for better life shattered due to untimely death of the deceased. d) Since the accident occurred due to rash and ncgligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, the peLitioners claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,OOO/- from the sole respondent

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above pctition averments, the respondent Frled counter denying thc averments of the petition and mainly contended that the decc:rsed l,,'as in drunken condition and when the respondent reached HP Petrol Pump, the deceased walked in trembling manner and suddenly came in front of the respondent's vehicle and fell down. It is further contended that the elder daughter of the deceased was working as a receptionist in Sai Vani Hospital and therefore, the deceased should have been retained in the hospiterl for better treatment, in case, he really suffered head injurv and in fact the deceased was discharged from the hospital within one day. It is further contended that the deceased was a chronic alcoholic and there could have been other reasons for his death but not the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also argued that the after a full fledged trial, the respondent was acquitted in :1 I "F C.C.No. 1570/ 2Ol2 by the II Metropolitan Magistrate - cum - Principle Magistrate for Juvenile Justice Board, Cybcrabhad on

27.11.2013 and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issue: WhetLer the petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,OO,O00/- from respondent, for causing the deoth of Ramulu, in o motor uehiculor accident that occurred on 1O-09-2O12 at about O3.OO PM neor HP Petrol htmp ot Yadau Nagar at Malkajgiri, due to rasll negligent and high speed ride of TVS SL Motorcycle beaing No. AP 29 AQ 18O5 by its diuer?

6. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunal, PWs 1to 3 were examined and Exs.Al to A9 were exhibited on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, the respondent, who is the driver of the crime vehicle, examined himself as RW 1 and Ex.B 1 was exhibited.

7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment awarding Rs. 10,0O,OOO/- as compensation to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the sole respondent hled the present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment. \ \ c McPi,

8. Heard Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the respondent/ appellant, Ms. Nandana Sarma PVB, learned counsel representing Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the respondents/ claimants and perused the material available on recorci including the grounds of Appeal.

9. It is to be seen that the respondents/claimants did not prefer any Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.

10. The hrst and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ respondents is that there is no negligence on his part and in fact the deceased was in drunken condition and when the respondent reached HP Petrol Pump, the deceased walked in trcmbling manner and suddenly came in front of the respondent's vehicle and fell down.

11. In order to establish that the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle, the respondent got examined himself before the learned Tribunal as RW1. RWl admitted in his cross examination that he is none other than the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 29 AQ 1805. He further admitted that he \ I :t 6 has no driving license to drive two-wheeler (by the date of accident)

1.2. On the other hand, in order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the respondent in causing the accident, the petitioners got examined PW2, who is alleged to be working as cashier at HP Petrol Bunk at Malkajgiri, wherein alleged accident took place. Pw2 categorically deposed that on lO.O9.2Ol2 at about 3.O0 PM while he was on duty in the petrol bunk, he noticed one male person was proceeding by walk trom Malkajgiri X Roads towards Mirjalaguda side on the extreme left side margin of the road with great care and diligence and when he reached near HP Petrol pump at yadav Nagar, Malkajgiri, suddenly one TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No. Ap 29 AQ 1805 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to male person. The evidence of pW2 further discloses that he was the person, who informed about the incident to 1O8 - ambulance.

13. Though PW2 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent, nothing could be elicited to discard his evidence. It is pertinent to note that pW2 is an independent witness, who was shown as LW3 in the charge sheet under 7 Ex.A2. Thus, the evidence of pW2 is consiJtent and corroborating with the evidence of pW1 so far as the manner in which the accident alleged to have occurred is concerned.

74. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitic'ners relied upon Exs.Al to A5 i.e., FIR, charge sheet, inquest report, pME report and MVI report. Exs.Al to A.4 categorically discloses that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle b1. the respondent.

15. As per rhe charge sheet, at the time of accident the respondent was coming from Mirjalguda on his TVS XL Motorcycle with two pillion riders yithout driving license, insurance and drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner u.ith high speed and dashecl the deceased. Even the learned Tribunal on considering the oral evidence of pWs 1 and 2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.Al to A4, arrived to a conclusion that thc accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver i.e., the sole respondent.

16. RW1 deposed in his cross examination that his vehicle did not even touch the deceased. But a perusal of Ex.AS i.e., report issued by Motor Vehicle Inspector disclose that head light frame \ \ 8 dented. If at atl the crime vehicle did not even touch the deceased, the respondent is expected to furnish sufhcient explanation for the alleged denting to head light frame as alleged in Ex.AS. That apart in ground No.ll the respondent alleged that the deceased might have fallen down due to the collision and received injuries. Thus, there is no clarit5z in the version of respondent as to whether there was collision or not because on one hand he is arguing that the deceased did not even touch his Vehicle and on the other hand he is contending that Lhe deceased might have fallen down due to collision. t7 It is the specihc contention of the respondent that though he was charged for causing the alleged accident under various sections of Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicle Act, he was acquitted in C.C.No.157O of 2Ol2 of allegations leveled against him and thereby he is not liable to pay any compensation. In support of the said contention, the respondent exhibited Ex.Bl the copy of the judgment in C.C.No. t SZO of 2012.

18. The respondent is making an attempt to bringing out the contradictions between the criminal case and the case before the learned Tribunal. However, it is settled law that al acquittal in a criminal court does not influence proceedings 9 MCPJ before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because the j standards of proof differ between criminal trials and proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In criminal cases, the prosecution must establish guilt of the accused "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas in cases before Motor Accident CLaims Tribunal, claims are to be decided based on the "preponderance of probabilities." It is settled law that the acquittal of :r driver in a criminal trial does not absolve them of negligence under civil liability. The proceedings before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal operate independently of criminal trials, and an acquittal in the latter does not wipe out the possibility of a hnding with repard to negligence in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

19. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent argued that the learned Tribunal erred by not considering the fact that no proper medical evidence was adduced by the claimants to prove that the deceased succumbed due to severe injuries caused during the accident, wherein the respondent was alleged for driving in a rash and negligent manner. It is further contention of the appellant/ respondent that the deceased died 9 days after the alleged accident and that the deceased might \ \ l0 have sustained injures in any other incident due to alcohol consumption

20. As seen from Ex.A4 postmortem examination report, the deceased died due to head injury (internal). Admittedly, as per Ex.A1, the incident occurred on 1O.O9.2012. As per Ex.A2, the deceased was provided hrst aid treatment at LK Hospital, Malkajgiri on the same day of the incident ald thereafter he was shifted to Sai Vani Hospital, Domalguda for better treatment. As per Ex.A9 i.e., prescription along with C Scan issued by Sai Vani Hospital, Domalguda, the deceased sustained right hemorrhagic infarct in the basal ganglia causing mild . compression on the right lateral ventricle. As per Ex.A3 at the time of accident, blood was oozing from his right ear. It appears that due to the accident there has been bleeding (hemorrhage) in the right side of the brain and there is a chance of causing infection in the brain due to the accumulated blood from a ruptured blood vessel in the brain. Moreover, it is not mandatory that a person, who sustains a head injury, will die on the spot or immediately. The severity of a head injury varies widely. Severe head trauma, especially if it involves signihcant bleeding, skull fractures, or brain swelling, can be fatal either immediately or later due to complications. t1 MGPJ

21. In the New India Assurance Company l,imitla v. Bibi Nafisa and othersr the High Court of Karnataka exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the crime vehicle was being driven b1. a minor, who is not qualified p-erson to apply for driving license so as to come within the ambit of sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In Jawahar Singh v. BaIa Jain and others2 the Honourable Supreme Court observed that in the event of driver being a minor without any license, liability to pay the compensation may be saddled on the oq,ner of the vehicle and direct the lnsurance company to pay and recover. In the instant case the vehicle u,as not even insured as can be seen from Ex.A2 charge

22. One of the contentions raised by the respondent is that the learned Tribunal while relying on Ex.A6 came to erroneous conclusion that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.19,128/- but the claimants have not hled any income tax returns to show that the deceased was paid such monthly sdary. \ ! MFA No.4683 of 20 t4 (MV-t)) decided on 2a.OS 2024 , 20r 1 (}J (sq 864 T2 :

23. As can be seen from the record, the claimants have examined the Senior Manager of United Spirits, wherein the deceased was alleged to have been working with Employment ID No.10O578, as PW3 to estabiish the monthly income of the deceased. Apart from that the claimants have relied upon documentary evidence under Ex.A6 i.e., salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased. pW3 categorically deposed that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs. l9,l2g/_ and Rs. 10O/- was being deducted from his salary towards professional tax besides PF. Ex.A6 is the salar5r certihcate issued by United Spirits. Thus, the income of the deceased as fixed by the learned Tribunal is shpported by oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants. Once the claimants have adduced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to establish the monthly income of the deceased, the question of hling income tax returns to establish the income of the deceased does not arise. Though pW3 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent, nothing could be elicited to establish that the deceased was not drawing Rs. 19,128/- per month. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with hnding of the learned Tribunal so far as earning capacity of the deceased is concerned. l3

24. It was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in I Jawahar Singh's case (supraf that the sole responsibility of accident lies on the person driving the motorcycle since it is the duty of owner to cnsure that his motorcycle is not misused. In the present casc, the respondent himself is the o"vner of the vehicle and also a minor. Further, though contributory \ negligence was attributed against the deceased in the present \ case, there is no iota of evidence to establish that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceascd in causing the accident. As can be gathered from Ex.A2 charge sheet, the respondent, who was studying intermediate at the time of accrdent, was driving the crime vehicle. without any license and insurance, more particularly, the respondent was accompanied by two pillion rider also. Thus, r,iewed from any angle, there is no point in exonerating the respondent, who is responsible for the alleged accident, from paying the compensation.

25. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellant / respondent failed to establish any of the grounds to set aside the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the present Appeal iS devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. I 14

26. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cosLs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR \- -YY I SECTfON OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal(District court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B Naga(With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRI NARAPARAJU , Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI. AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies AS/ADK &^Q, HIGH COURT MGP,J DATED:0610312025 \i1 E STA o() 7 l_ 2a r,) )... * F:: ).\-.4 D *-: ,,n)y' '',_;i'' 2 DRAFTS JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1939 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA $(^. \^\+1'{ WITHOUT COSTS [ 32531 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELI-A,NEOUS APPEAL NO: 1939 OF 201I Between: Kailash Chowdary, S/o Nagaram Chowdary, Aged about 21 yrs, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.45-179/2,Uppariguda,Malkajgiri, Medchal Dist. (Owner of the TVS XL Motor Cycle bearing Regd. No. AP29AQ 1805). ...Appel lanURespondent AND 1 Smt. Peddolla Ngamani, Wo Late Ramulu, Aged about 40 yrs, Occ House wife.

2. P. Kavitha, D/o Late Ramulu, Aged about 22 yrs, Occ. Nill.

3. P. Chendralakala, D/o late Ramulu, Aged about 20 yrs, Occ. Student.

4. P. Madhavi, D/o late Ramulu, Aged about 16 yrs, Occ. Student, (being minor rep. by her mother and natural guardian petitioner No. 'l ) ...Respondents/Petitioners Nos. I to 4 Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Judgment and decree in MVOP.No.868 of 2013 dated.31 .05.2017 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(District Court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar. 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 NARAPARAJU AVANEESH, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 'I . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Dismissed;

2. That save as aforesaid, the 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 COPY// D/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR L \iJ' \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar(District court), Ranga Reddy District at L.B Nagar

2. Two CD Copies ASiADK PM.(, HIGH COURT MGP,J DATED:0610312025 I I DECREE MACMA.No.1939 of 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t\+tx