Reddivari Raja Reddy vs Korru Vvenkatramana Reddy 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1194 AP

                                1          MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A.No.1419 of 2012



JUDGMENT:

The appellant is claimant in MVOP.No.214 of 2008

on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII

Addl. District Judge (F.T.C.) at Madanapalle and the

respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they

are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimant has filed a claim petition under

section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained

by him in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred on

23.03.2006 at about 7:30 am.

4. The case of the claimant is that on 23.03.2006 at

about 7:30 A.M., while he was going to his sister's house 2 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

at Modukuru on his personal work from Peddayellakunta

Village on his TVS 50 XL bearing registration No.AP 03 H

8140. While he reached near Santha gate of Chowdepalle

Village at about 7:30 AM., the 1st respondent, who is

rider-cum-owner of the Hero Honda Splendor Motor

Cycle bearing registration No.AP 03 Q 1926, was coming

from Modukuru Village, drove in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed the claimant, as a result, he

sustained grievous bleeding injuries to his head, left ear

and multiple injuries all over his body and became

unconscious.

5. The 1st respondent pleaded that there was no rash

and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Motor cycle at

that time of accident, that the petition is bad for

nonjoinder of the owner and Insurance company of the

TVS XL bearing No. AP 03 H 8140, the petitioner was not

having valid and effective driving license to drive TVS 50 3 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

XL, that Kesavareddy who was the owner of the Hero

Honda Splendor Motor cycle at the time of accident is

necessary party to the proceedings, that Oriental

Insurance company with which the Hero Honda Splendor

was insured is also necessary party to the petition and

the amount claimed is highly excessive.

6. The 2nd respondent pleaded that the petitioner did

not possess any valid driving license, that there is

contributory negligence on part of the petitioner, he has

to work out his remedies against the TVS 50 XL bearing

No.AP 03 H 8140, that the injuries sustained by the

petitioner are superficial in nature, that the disability

alleged to have been sustained by petitioner is not

permanent in nature, that the rider of the Hero Honda

motor cycle had valid driving license, that the Insurance

policy was in force at the time of accident and that the

claim made by the petitioner is excessive.

4 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

7. The 3rd respondent pleaded that the police filed

charge sheet against the petitioner and owner of the TVS

50 XL, namely C. Muralireddy, that the accident in

question was not due to rash and negligent driving of the

rider of the Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle, that the

Insurance company is not liable to pay compensation,

that the petition is bad for nonjoinder of necessary

parties, that the liability of the Insurance company is

strictly governed by the terms and conditions as

stipulated in the policy and that the 3rd respondent is not

liable to pay compensation.

8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle bearing No.AP 03 Q 1926 involved resulting the injuries sustained by the petitioner by name of R.Rajareddy?

5 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, by whom and what amount?

3) To what relief?

9. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner relied on the

evidence of PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9

and Ex.C1. on behalf of respondents, RW1 to RW3 were

examined and got marked Ex.B1 and X1.

10. Now the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the Order of the learned Tribunal

needs any interference?

2) Whether the appellant/claimant for injured is

entitled the compensation as prayed for?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

11. As per the case of the petitioner, he is proceeding on

two-wheeler TVS 50 XL bearing Registration No. AP 03 H 6 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

8140. The material available on record shows that the

said TVS 50 XL dashed Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle.

In cross-examination the claimant admitted that the 1st

respondent dashed his Two-wheeler when it was

stationed on the road and the 1st respondent scribed the

complaint and handed over to the police, himself and

Muralireddy obtained bail in Punganur Court Ex.A1

shows that the police took the statement of the petitioner,

the recitals of the said complaint is that on 23.03.2006 at

about 7:30 AM., while the petitioner was going on TVS 50

XL while keeping the son of his daughter in front of him

and dashed to the Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle

which was coming in opposite direction. It clearly goes to

show that the accident is occurred due to self-negligence

of the claimant only. Though another witness is

examined as PW2, he admits in cross-examination that

he did not give any complaint to the police about the 7 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

accident and the criminal case is filed against the

claimant i.e., PW1. The evidence available on record

clearly goes to show that, the accident is occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the claimant itself. No doubt,

the claim petition is filed under section 163-A Motor

Vehicle Act, the negligence need not be proved, but in an

instant case, because of the self-negligence of the

claimant only, the accident is occurred. Therefore, the

claimant is not entitled any compensation.

12. The material on record goes to show that, the

evidence of PW3 coupled with Ex.A4 to A6 and Ex.C1

disclose that the petitioner was admitted in SVIMS

Hospital, Tirupathi on 27.03.2006, and discharged on

24.04.2006 and after discharged from hospital only the

petitioner gave a report to the police.

13. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that,

the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent driving 8 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

of the claimant himself, the owner of the said TVS XL

moped is none other than the son-in-law of the claimant,

but he was not shown as the party in the claim

application before the Tribunal below.

14. The PW1 admitted in cross-examination that the

TVS 50 XL moped was owned by his son-in-law,

Muralireddy, and he had no driving license to drive the

TVS 50 XL moped.

15. The evidence on record clearly goes to show that,

because of the self-negligence of the claimant/petitioner

only, the accident is occurred by that time, the rider of

the Two-wheeler TVS 50 XL is not having any kind of

driving license. Since, the accident is occurred due to the

self-negligence of the claimant itself, and the accident is

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the claim

petitioner, who drove the vehicle TVS 50 XL bearing

No.AP 03 H 8140. For the reasons best known to the 9 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

claimant, the owner of the crime vehicle who is none

other than his son-in-law, was not shown as a party in

the claim petition.

16. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, it is clear

that, since owner of the TVS XL moped is only liable to

pay the compensation, but the owner of the TVS 50 XL

by name Muralireddy who none other than the son-in-

law of the claimant, is not joined as a party in this case.

Therefore, in view of the above reasons stated above,

there are no merits in present appeal. Accordingly, the

points are answered.

17. In the result this appeal is dismissed by confirming

the order dated 04.02.2012 in MVOP.No.214 of 2008

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- VII

Addl. District Judge (FTC), Madanapalle.

10 MACMA.NO.1419 of 2012

As sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in this appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date:01.03.2023 KNN