Telangana High Court

Yeludonda Sudhakar Reddy vs Ch. Venkanna Yadav And Anr on 1 September, 2023

Bench: Pulla Karthik

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

              M.A.C.M.A. No.1251 of 2007

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by

the dismissal order passed in OP No.901 of 2005, dated

09.08.2006, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Nalgonda, at Miryalaguda (for short "the

Tribunal").

2. The case of the appellant is that on 13.05.2005 at

about 08:30 p.m. while the appellant was waiting at the

bus stop of Batchannagudem for Bus, in the meantime,

a Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-24-K-4889

being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent

manner came at high speed from Chandur side

and dashed against him. As a result of which, the

appellant had sustained compound fracture of distal

femur, fracture of right patella and grievous injuries on

all over the body. Immediately he was admitted in the PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

Government Hospital, Nalgonda and thereafter, he took

treatment in Sri Rama Orthopaedic Hospital, Nalgonda.

It is pleaded that the appellant was hale and healthy

prior to the accident. He was aged about 25 years at

the time of accident and was earning an amount of

Rs.4,000/- per month on agriculture and milk

business. It is further pleaded that the appellant has

not been recovered from the injuries and fractures and

suffering from pain and other difficulties and is unable

to attend the agricultural operations as like earlier and

he is not in a position to sell the milk in the

surrounding villages and towns.

3. The 1st respondent is remained ex parte before the

Tribunal.

4. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its

counter denying all the averments made in the petition.

It is pleaded that the driver of the Hero Honda bearing

No. AP-24-K-4889 was not holding valid and effective

driving licence at the time of accident and he was not PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

permitted by the owner of the said vehicle to drive the

same. It is further pleaded that as per the F.I.R., the

accident took place on 13.05.2005 and the complaint

was lodged on 24.05.2005 after lapse of eleven days,

after occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the

involvement of the Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.

AP-24-K-4889 in the alleged accident was not correct.

It is further pleaded as per the wound certificate, the

appellant sustained injuries due to collision of the two

auto rickshaws and therefore, it clearly reveals that the

injuries sustained by the appellant were due to the

involvement of the auto rickshaw, but not due to the

involvement of the said Hero Honda motor cycle.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following

issues were settled for trial:

1. Whether the claimant sustained any injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-24-K-4889?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for any compensation from whom?

PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the appellant himself

was examined as Pw-1, Dr.L.Raji Reddy as Pw-2 and

one Burri Narsi Reddy as Pw-3 and got marked

Exs.A-1 to A-6 documents in support of his claim. The

respondent No.2 insurance-Company got marked copy

of insurance policy as Ex.B-1.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence on

record with regard to the occurrence of the accident and

discarded the entire oral as well as documentary

evidence on record and thereby, erred in concluding

that the appellant did not sustain any injuries involving

the Hero Honda motor cycle in the accident and that

the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. It is

further contended that the Tribunal ought to have seen

that lodging of F.I.R. with delay of eleven days with a

genuine and plausible explanation. Further, the PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

complaint could not be lodged immediately, as the

complainant was accompanying the appellant in the

hospital. It is further contended that the Tribunal

illogically placed reliance on the endorsement made in

the wound certificate that the nature of injury was due

to collision of the two autos. The Tribunal ought to have

ignored such an endorsement, which has no basis. It is

further contended that the respondents failed to

examine any one to establish that there was a collision

of the two autos on 13.05.2005 and the appellant

sustained the injuries in the said accident. It is further

contended that mere endorsement on the wound

certificate issued by the Hospital authorities does not

suffice to disbelieve the oral evidence of the witness,

which was corroborated with the documentary evidence.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent contended that the Tribunal has rightly

dismissed the petition on the basis of the evidence and

the material available on record. It is further contended PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

that as the appellant had failed to prove the

involvement of the vehicle in the accident, the Tribunal

was justified in dismissing the petition. It is further

contended that there is no error in the order of the

Tribunal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. This court has taken note of the submissions

made by the respective Counsel.

11. A perusal of the record discloses that the

appellant-Pw-1 admits that the crime vehicle belongs to

one Shyam Sunder, Advocate of Nalgonda, who filed the

original petition before the Tribunal on behalf of the

appellant. Further, he has conceded that the complaint

was given eleven days after the occurrence of the

accident. In his cross-examination, Pw-1 denied the

suggestion of the respondent-Insurance company that

the collision of the two autos being the cause of the

accident and that the crime motor vehicle did not cause

the accident. He further denied the suggestion of the

respondent-Insurance company that he got introduced PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

the motor cycle as the crime vehicle. He also denied the

suggestion that the crime vehicle belongs to Sri

Venkanna Yadav, Advocate, who is respondent No.1.

According to Pw-3 Burri Narsireddy, who is said to be

the eye witness to the accident, he saw the accident in

issue, while he was standing at the bus stop of

Batchannagudem, and it was occurred due to the

negligent driving by the rider of the crime motor cycle.

Ex.A-2 wound certificate issued by the Government

Civil Hospital, Nalgonda in the name of the appellant

discloses that the appellant himself went to the

hospital. In the wound certificate, the remarks

under the column "by what kind of weapon infliction"

show that 'auto collided with another auto at 9.30 p.m.

on 13.05.2005'. Therefore, the recitals of Ex.A-2 wound

certificate apparently supports the contention of the

respondent-Insurance company that the accident in

issue took place due to collision of the two autos and

therefore, the crime vehicle was not involved in the PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007

accident. In this context, it is relevant to extract the

following observations of the Tribunal.

"...It is a peculiar case where the crime vehicle is belonged to Advocate, dealing with present case on behalf of the appellant, though it is denied by the Pw- 1 the case of the insurance company that this crime vehicle is not owned by Sri Venkanna Yadav, who is advocate of Nalgonda. So, the inordinate delay of lodging the complaint might have facilitated the introduction of the crime vehicle for obvious reasons to have insurance coverage besides other reasons. The appellant has not come up with any explanation as to recitals of Ex.A-2 wound certificate as to head- on collision of two autos as the cause for the accident in this case..."

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of

the opinion that after analyzing the oral and

documentary evidence available on record in proper

perspective, the Tribunal has rightly come to the

conclusion that the crime vehicle was set-up by the

appellant, it was not involved in the accident and that

the appellant is not entitled for any compensation and

thereby, dismissed the petition.

13. Therefore, this Court does not see any error in the

order of the Tribunal warranting interference. Hence,

the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

PK, J MACMA.No.1251 of 2007