Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 115 (TS)

Sandadi Rama Devi v. Puliyala Jaipal Reddy

2026-01-20

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2026
JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award passed by the Motor vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2013, dated 06.10.2016, wherein the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2013 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident. It is contended that on 25.12.2008, the deceased i.e., Sri S.Laxma Reddy who worked as Head Constable in CRPF was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-22-Q-3686 along with one Dharmia as pillion rider and when they reached near Kalyan Nagar, the driver of the Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR- 0143 drove the tractor in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased motor cycle, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. The Police of Kalwakurthy Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.248 of 2008 under Section 304-A of IPC. 3a. The contention of the appellants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 39 years and the deceased got 10 years of permanent service and on his death, the claimants/petitioners lost their dependency and claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the Tractor remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – Reliance General Insurance Company filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that crime vehicle was not having valid insurance coverage, the driver of the said crime vehicle did not have valid and subsisting driving licence to drive the effective offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle was not road worthy to ply and further mainly contended that the crime vehicle was not involved in the said accident and the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. 5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-22-Q-3686 (Tractor) and AP-22-Q-3693 causing death of S.Laxma Reddy? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief? 6. On behalf of petitioners P.ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.w1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B.2 were marked. 7. After considering the oral and documentary evidences and perused the material on record and the evidence placed by appellants and respondent No.2, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that petitioners/claimants failed to establish that the Crime Vehicle i.e., Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 was involved in the said accident and the said alleged Tractor and Trailer dashed the deceased resulting in death of the deceased. 8. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners/claimants and Sri K.Ajay Kumar , learned counsel for the respondent No.2 – Reliance General Insurance Company. Perused the material on record. 9. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order, dated 06.10.2016, the present appeal is filed by the claimants/petitioners on the ground that the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the appellants have failed to established the very involvement of alleged Vehicle i.e., Tractor AP- 22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 which caused death of the deceased. 10. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Police arrested Driver of the Crime Vehicle after the accident, which clearly shows that the accident occurred with the said Crime Vehicle and even the PW-4 i.e., Police Officer after conducting detailed investigation traced out the Tractor and Trolley involved in the accident, the driver of Tractor and Trolley arrested and filed Charge-sheet was filed which was marked as Ex.A2. The Police have examined PW.2 as ‘panch witness’ instead of eye witness due to technical procedural lapse. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the M.V.Act is beneficial and welfare legislation, since in enquiries in claim cases arising under Act, the Tribunal has to follow summary procedure. 10a. The Police have examined PW.2 as ‘panch witness’ instead of eye witness due to technical procedural lapse. The learned Tribunal failed to consider that the M.V.Act is beneficial and welfare legislation, since in enquiries in claim cases arising under Act, the Tribunal has to follow summary procedure. 10a. Learned counsel for the claimants relied upon on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in i) National Insurance Company Limited v. Chamundeswari and others , (2021) 18 SCC 596 ; ii) Vimala Devi and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others , 2018 (6) ALD 115 (SC) ; iii) Janabai and others v. ICICI Lambord Insurance Company limited , 2022 (5) ALD 76 (SC) ; iv) United India Insurance Company Limited v. G.Mallaiah , 2010(6) ALD 13 and prayed this Court to set aside the learned Tribunal order and grant just and fair compensation to the claimants. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance company contended that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the claimants and no interference is required and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Admittedly, there is serious dispute with regard to involvement of alleged crime vehicle i.e., Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and Trailer No.AP-22- AU-TR-0143, wherein the learned Tribunal come to conclusion that the said crime vehicle was not involved in the said accident and dismissed the claim petition. The point which arose for consideration before this Court is that; i) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition and dismissed the claim petition. ii) Whether the alleged Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22- AU-TR-0143 was planted after the accident for the sake of claiming compensation from the respondents. iii) Whether the appellants are entitled for the compensation, if so, to what extent?” Point Nos.1 & 2: 13. A perusal of the record goes to show that respondent No.2/Insurance Company has resisted the claim petition by challenging the very involvement of the vehicle Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and Trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 in the accident and claimed it to be a planted one for the purpose of getting compensation in an unlawful manner. 14. A perusal of the record goes to show that respondent No.2/Insurance Company has resisted the claim petition by challenging the very involvement of the vehicle Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and Trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 in the accident and claimed it to be a planted one for the purpose of getting compensation in an unlawful manner. 14. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of the FIR with complaint, Ex.A2 is the certified copy of final result, Ex.A3 is the certified copy of inquest, Ex.A4 is the certified copy of postmortem report, Ex.A5 is the certified copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector report, Ex.A6 is the crime details form, Ex.A7 is the identity card of the deceased, Ex.A8 is the driving license of the accused, Ex.A9 is the driving license of the deceased, Ex.A10 is the R.C. of the deceased. 15. In cross examination of PW.1-(wife of deceased), admitted that she is not eye witness to the accident, hence she has no knowledge how the accident occurred. PW.2 claimed to be eye witness and he deposed before the Tribunal that he was proceeding in front of deceased bike at the time of accident, the drier of Tractor bearing No.AP-22-Q-3686 and Trailer No.AP-22-Q-3693, drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the motor cycle on which deceased and pillion rider were riding, as a result of the said accident, the deceased died on the spot and also deposed that due the rash and negligent driving of the said Tractor and Trailer by its driver the accident occurred and deposed that he called 108 Ambulance. And the Police examined the accident spot after ten minutes of the accident, and his name is mentioned as “panch witness” in the inquest report and in charge sheet, but not as an eye witness to the accident and further deposed that there is a mention in the inquest report that one unknown vehicle dashed the motor cycle of the deceased. 16. The Tribunal has minutely analyzed the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the documentary evidence on record and found material inconsistencies between the earliest documents and the subsequent police papers. The evidence of the alleged eye-witness was not corroborated by contemporaneous records, and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report did not disclose damage corresponding to the alleged accident. 17. 16. The Tribunal has minutely analyzed the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and the documentary evidence on record and found material inconsistencies between the earliest documents and the subsequent police papers. The evidence of the alleged eye-witness was not corroborated by contemporaneous records, and the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report did not disclose damage corresponding to the alleged accident. 17. In the present case, it is necessary to discuss the deposition of PW.4 i.e., Investigation officer wherein the PW.4 has elaborately deposed how he came to know about the alleged crime vehicle involved the accident, which is extracted below for ready reference: “.. The complaint dt.26-12-2008 was lodged by Smt.Ramadevi, who is the wife of deceased S.Laxma Reddy. It is true to suggest that in the said complaint there was no mention that the offending vehicle was Tractor or its registration number and that it was only mentioned as “Unknown Vehicle”. I have visited the scene of offence on 26.12.2008 at 08.30 hrs. The said accident occurred at 21.00 hrs on 25.12.2008. I got photographed the scene of offence. My successor-in-office has filed charge sheet in Crime No.248 of 2018 on 23-3-2009. During the course of investigation I have made efforts to trace out the offending vehicle and also by sending informers to trace out the offending vehicle. On 25-2-2009 the complainant S.Ramadevi has submitted representation mentioning the details of the tractor driver by name B.Krishnaiah R/o. of Kalwakurthy and the name of the owner of the said tractor as B.Jaypal Reddy of Kungugul Village. It is true that till 25.-2-2009 i.e., the date of submitting representation by Smt.S.Ramadevi, I could not find that the said Tractor and Trailer were involved in the accident. Witness adds that on 25.02-2009 he has examined the owner of said Tractor and Trailer by name S.Jaypal Reddy and other witness by name Singotham and from the statements of those two witnesses, it was revealed that the said Tractor and Trailer was the offending vehicle involved in the said accident.” 18. From the statement of PW4-Investigation Officer, it is clear that Investigation Officer has not traced out the alleged Crime vehicle i.e., Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 and the Investigation Officer based on the representation of the claimant i.e., wife of the deceased has made the said Tractor and Trailer as the Crime Vehicle in the said accident. From the statement of PW4-Investigation Officer, it is clear that Investigation Officer has not traced out the alleged Crime vehicle i.e., Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 and the Investigation Officer based on the representation of the claimant i.e., wife of the deceased has made the said Tractor and Trailer as the Crime Vehicle in the said accident. Even in the Ex.A5 report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, it was mentioned as “No damages were found” on the said Tractor and Trailer. The PW.1 who provided the information to the police about the said Tractor and Trailer did not disclose how she got precise information about the said Tractor and Trailer though she was also not an eye witness to the accident. 19. The Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 is indeed a beneficial piece of legislation, but that does not mean that every claim shall be entertained with a free and open hand in a mechanical manner. The Courts ought to weigh the evidence adduced and come to a just decision. In all, this Court find that the claimants and have failed to established the said Tractor and Trailer were involved in the said accident and the decisions relied by the learned counsel for the appellants are different from the facts of the present case and such, the same are not applicable herein. 20. It is pertinent to mention herein the relevant potion of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in N.S. Sithara & Ors. v. Sai Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd, 2025 INSC 1425 stated in Paragraphs Nos.16 to 19 16) This Court is conscious of the settled legal position that in cases of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof required is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is also well settled that the absence of vehicle registration number in the FIR or complaint lodged immediately after the accident is not, by itself, fatal to the claim. An FIR is not an encyclopedia and omissions at the initial stage may not be determinative. However, the claimants must establish the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the caveat that the connection of the accident with the said vehicle must be established through cogent and reliable evidence. 17) However, in the present case, the omission of the vehicle registration number in the complaint cannot be viewed in isolation, but in conjunction with other infirmities in the evidence. 17) However, in the present case, the omission of the vehicle registration number in the complaint cannot be viewed in isolation, but in conjunction with other infirmities in the evidence. The complaint merely states that a vehicular accident occurred without identifying the offending vehicle. The spot mahazar was admittedly prepared several days after the accident. In absence of any eyewitness to the accident, there is nothing to indicate the basis upon which it was drawn up or whose statement formed its foundation. 18) Most significantly, the report dated 05.10.2013 of the Motor Vehicle Inspector reveals no damage whatsoever to the alleged offending vehicle. A circumstance that is wholly inconsistent with a collision of such severity as to cause the death of two persons. This report provides no basis for the claim, and the fact that the chargesheet filed after the vehicle was recovered one and a half months post- accident raises concerns about the reliability of the evidence. 19) We are deeply conscious of the tragic loss suffered by the families of the deceased. The pain of losing young lives in their prime is immeasurable. However, the principles of law cannot be set aside on the grounds of sympathy alone. Liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence. The Courts below have found, after scrutinizing the evidence, that the appellants failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle driven by respondent No.1. We find no perversity in the appreciation of evidence, nor exceptional circumstances warranting interference with these concurrent findings.” 21. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in the affirmative, holding that the learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition and rightly disbelieved the involvement of the alleged Tractor and Trailer. Point No.3 22. In order to award compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are required to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle and rash and negligent driving. In the present case, both the Tribunal and this Court have found that the appellants failed to establish these foundational facts. When the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle itself is not proved, the question of awarding compensation does not arise. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered against the appellants, holding that they are not entitled to any compensation. 23. In the present case, both the Tribunal and this Court have found that the appellants failed to establish these foundational facts. When the involvement of the alleged offending vehicle itself is not proved, the question of awarding compensation does not arise. Accordingly, Point No.3 is answered against the appellants, holding that they are not entitled to any compensation. 23. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A No. 457 of 2020 is dismissed confirming the order passed by the by the Motor vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad in M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2013, dated 06.10.2016. 24. However, this order will not preclude the appellants to seek compensation by filing appropriate application under Section 161 of M.V.Act before appropriate authority/Court and the claimants are at liberty to do so if they intends to. In view of bonafide persuasion of this proceeding, the question of limitation shall not be raised, if any application is made as stated above. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.