Telangana High Court
Sri. N. Laxmaiah vs Elangovan.K on 28 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
M.A.C.M.A.No.556 OF 2020
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2020 in
M.V.O.P.No.571 of 2013 on the file of Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District
Judge, Ranga Reddy District whereunder their petition for
compensation for the death of N.Yedamaiah in a road
traffic accident was dismissed by the Tribunal, the
petitioners in the above referred MVOP have filed this
appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act and sought for setting
aside the impugned Judgment, and prayed for grant of
compensation.
2. As could be seen from the averments made in the
original petition filed before the Tribunal, it was the case of
the appellants herein that the said Yedamaiah (hereinafter
be referred as deceased), who hails from Mahabubnagar
District had been to Tamilnadu for attending labour work.
SSRN, J
On 15.02.2013 while he was crossing R.G. Road, East to
West at Dhauryapakam, opposite to Raj Furniture shop at
Chennai, driver of a Tempo traveler bearing No.TN-20-BD-
9506 drove his vehicle in high speed, in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed him due to which he fell down
and sustained grievous injuries.
3. He was immediately shifted to Government Hospital,
Chennai. After obtaining treatment he was shifted to his
native place Madaram, Mahaboobnagar District. He has
attended private hospitals, however, in view of infection
developed in entire body he succumbed to injuries on
13.03.2013.
4. The appellants herein have claimed that the deceased
was working as labour and earning Rs.300/- per day and
also Rs.50/- as batta and contributing his earnings for the
welfare of the family. The appellants have claimed that the
1st appellant herein is the younger brother of the deceased,
whereas the other appellants are the children of appellant
No.1. They have also claimed that the deceased was
SSRN, J
contributing his income for the maintenance of the family
consisting appellants herein, thereby they sought for
compensation. The said petition was filed against the
owner of the above said vehicle and also insurer from
which a policy was obtained against the vehicle.
5. The 1st respondent remained exparte. Whereas the
insurance company opposed the claim and sought for
dismissal of the petition. The Tribunal having appreciated
the pleadings and evidence, dismissed the petition on the
ground that the appellants herein were not able to prove
that they are dependants of the deceased and there is no
evidence to believe that the death of the deceased was due
to the above referred accident.
6. As could be seen from the record, the 3rd appellant
herein was examined as PW1 and one Kavali Chennaiah
was examined as PW2. The 2nd respondent/insurance
company has examined V.Venkataramana as RW1. Exs.A1
to A7 were marked on behalf of the appellants. Whereas,
the insurance company filed a copy of policy and marked it
SSRN, J
as Ex.B1. The record through Exs.A1 to A5 indicates that
soon after the above referred accident, the police concerned
have registered a case in Crime No.138/S1/2013 for the
offence under Section 279 and 337 of Indian Penal Code.
The appellants herein could not Place any material before
the Court that some infection was developed due to the
injuries caused in the above accident and that he died due
to the said infection. There is no medical record in support
of the contentions of the appellants or to believe that the
death was due to infection due to injuries caused in the
above said road accident. In addition to this there is no
material before the Court to accept that the appellants
herein are dependents of the deceased.
7. As rightly observed by the Tribunal, the appellants
did not place any record and it is an admitted fact that the
deceased was an unmarried and the appellants in spite of
claiming relationship could not file any acceptable evidence
in support of their claim. Therefore, the appellants were
not able to establish that the deceased died due to the
SSRN, J
injuries caused in road accident and that he was
contributing his earnings to the appellants/family.
Therefore, the Court below rightly dismissed the petition
filed by them. Absolutely, there are no merits in the appeal,
as such liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications, if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________
JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU
Date: 28.02.2024
PSSK
