Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd vs Ananthaiah Chakali Ananthaiah on 7 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT: HYDERABAD
* THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1487 of 2023
% Delivered on: 07-08-2025
Between:
# M/s. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Ltd. .. Appellant
Vs.
$ Sri Ananthaiah @ Chakali Ananthaiah & 2 others
.. Respondents
! For Appellant : Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy
Standing Counsel
^ For Respondent No.1 : Mr. K. Venkatesh Gupta,
< Gist :
> Head Note :
? Cases Referred :
2
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1487 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel
for the appellant/Insurance company and K. Venkatesh Gupta,
learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. Perused the entire
record.
2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman,
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at
Mahabubnagar (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.52 of 2019,
dated 12.09.2023, the appellant/respondent No.3 challenged the
finding of the Tribunal on the ground of false implication of the
lorry, failure on the part of the respondent No.1/claimant to prove
the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252
and delay in lodging the complaint.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2018, the
accident occurred when the claimant went to do cooli work at his
field. On that day, the claimant dragged electric wire between
electric poles which is located between the agricultural lands of
Kodiganti Chandraiah and Edigi Laxmaiah and in between the
poles, there is a road. The petitioner was on pole at 4 pm and one
lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252 driven by its driver with high speed
in rash and negligent manner came from Theegalapally and
dragged the electric wire whereby the electric wire touched to 11 KV
wire, current passed through the wire causing electrocution of the
claimant. Due to electrocution, the claimant fell down on a stone
bar from the electric pole and sustained bleeding injuries to his
right leg and jaw. Immediately, the wife of the claimant and
claimant's brother took him to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar for
treatment and then to NIMS, Hyderabad for better treatment.
Though the accident occurred on 24.01.2018, the complaint was
lodged on 19.03.2018 i.e. after more than 50 days of occurrence of
the accident. The reference is made to the evidence led by the
claimant about first being admitted in SVS Hospital on 24.01.2018
and then discharged on 25.01.2018 and again, he was admitted in
NIMS Hospital on 19.02.2018 and was discharged on 26.02.2018,
but the complaint was lodged on 19.03.2018.
4. The claimant emphasized that there were gaps between time
periods of hospitalization of the claimant and when he was finally
discharged on 26.02.2018, there is no reason for delay in lodging
the complaint on 19.03.2018. According to the appellant, this gap
shows that there is collusion between the claimant and the
owner/respondent. Further, it is emphasized that there was no
vehicle involved in the accident and the sequence of events which
led to the accident cannot be construed as a road traffic accident.
The offending lorry merely dragged an electric wire which was
negligently laid on the road and due to the movement of lorry, the
electric wire touched 11 KV wire and thereby, the claimant got
electrocuted and fell down. The claimant questioned the spreading
of electric wires on the ground while carrying on repairing work
without any signal and therefore, denied liability to pay
compensation, more particularly, as there was no negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry.
5. A perusal of the record shows that the incident occurred
when a person by name Kodiganti Chandraiah engaged the
claimant to draw electric wires to his agricultural field. In that
process, the claimant has drawn the wire from electric pole and it
was laid on the road. When the lorry was passing through said road
and was driven on the wires, said wires got dragged and touched
the 11 KV wire and thereby, the claimant got electrocuted and fell
down from the electric pole. In this regard, the cross examination of
the claimant as PW1 is crucial. Said crucial evidence is extracted
and produced below:
" It is not a road accident. One Kodiganti Chandraiah
engaged me as a coolie to pull electric wires from the electric
pole to the fields of Kodiganti Chandraiah. No personnel of the
Electricity Department are present at that place. I climbed up
the electric pole. The electric wires are laid on the road. No
precautionary boards are erected at that place. Chandraiah
did not obtain any permission from the Electricity Department
to disconnect the electricity supply at the relevant time.
Witness adds that the transformer was switched off. It is true
the Lorry passed on the electric wires and touched the 11KV
wire and due to that I was subjected to electrocution and fell
down on the ground from the pole."
6. Firstly, the above evidence shows that the electric wires were
laid on the road without erecting precautionary boards. No
permission was taken from the Electricity Department for
disconnecting electric supply at the relevant time. The claimant fell
down from electric pole due to electrocution but on account of any
road traffic accident. The only incidental event in this whole
sequence is that the offending lorry allegedly passed on the electric
wires which were laid on the road. Said event can by no stretch of
imagination be categorized as rash and negligent driving. The driver
of the lorry would hardly have knowledge that the wires laid on the
road may have electric supply or that they made lead to
electrocution when such wires come into contact with live 11 KV
wires. The lorry was proceeding in normal course on the road.
There is also probability that the lorry driver would not observe
wires laid on the road and was passing normally. Hence, sequence
of events leading to electrocution of the claimant does not inspire
confidence to categorize the incident as one resulting out of rash
and negligent driving.
7. The second point which raises doubt about the genuineness
of the version presented by the claimant is the time gap between
the date of incident and date of lodging complaint. As per the
evidence adduced by the claimant (PW1) himself, he was first
admitted in the hospital on 24.01.2018 and was discharged on
25.01.2018 i.e. within a period of one day. Thereafter, the claimant
was again hospitalized on 19.02.2018 and was discharged on
26.02.2018. There was a gap of 25 days between the first
hospitalization and second hospitalization during which time, the
claimant was in Mahabubnagar but did not choose to file complaint
by himself or through any of his relatives. Further, after being
hospitalized at NIMS on 19.02.2018, and discharged on 26.02.208,
there was a gap of 21 days by 19.03.2018, the day on which
complaint is lodged. There is no plausible explanation for not giving
complaint during the time period of gaps between two
hospitalizations and lodging of complaint. Thirdly, as per discharge
summary/Ex.A4, the claimant was admitted due to electrocution
and fall from an electric pole. There is no mention about the
involvement of lorry for the electrocution. Therefore, this sequence
of events has given rise to a valid ground for the
appellant/Insurance company to question the genuineness of the
accident on account of involvement of the lorry and its liability to
pay compensation.
8. When the claimant has himself admitted that he was engaged
for drawing electric wires to the agricultural fields Kodiganti
Chandraiah, that no permission was obtained for drawing electric
wires, said act on one hand amounts to a criminal offence for
drawing electric wires without knowledge of the Electricity
Department and without disconnecting the electric supply during
relevant time period apart from being an act of self-negligence,
where the claimant risked his own life.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the incident of the claimant's fall from the
electric pole cannot be categorized as a road traffic accident much
less one that is arising from rash and negligent driving of driver of
the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252. On the prima facie belief that
the lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252 was involved in the accident, as
per the version presented by PW2, who is an eye witness to the
accident, only no fault liability can be attributed to the incident and
no more. The claimant is not entitled to payment of compensation
under Section 166 of M.V.Act and therefore, the finding of the
Tribunal is liable to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the MACMA is partly allowed and the claimant is
awarded Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of M.V.Act. The said
amount shall carry interest at 9% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization. The appellant/Insurance
company shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit,
claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing the security. The amount, if any, deposited by the
appellant/Insurance company in excess of the above mentioned
awarded amount shall be returned to them. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 07.08.2025
gvl
