[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Telangana High Court
Md Ismail vs G Vijayanath on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.278 of 2019
DATE: 01.12.2025
Between:
Md. Ismail and four others
.....Appellants
AND
G.Vijayanath and another.
....Respondents
JUDGMENT:
This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(for short "the Act"), is filed by the appellants-claimants, challenging
the order and decree dated 29.06.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1260 of
2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief
Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as "the
Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said O.P.
2. The case of the appellants is that on 18.12.2011, the deceased-
Abidabee along with her cousin-Md.Ismail, were travelling on hero
honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 P 0717 and when the vehicle
reached near Mahindra Dhaba at Huggelly Village, the motorcycle
turned turtle and both fell down, due to which, the deceased
sustained grievous injuries, was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and,
after undergoing treatment for about forty-three days, died on
29.01.2012. Stating that the deceased was working as an
agricultural coolie and earning Rs.90,000/- per annum, the
appellants herein, who are the husband and children of the deceased
filed M.V.O.P.No.1260 of 2012 under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- with
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of
realization of the entire amount.
3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte.
The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company opposed the claim and
pleaded that the accident was not caused on account of negligence of
the motorcycle rider. It was specifically contended that the rider of
the motorcycle, clearly admitted that an unknown Bolero vehicle
came in a rash manner from the opposite direction, forcing him to
swerve the motorcycle to the extreme left, due to which it skidded.
On that basis, the Insurance Company contended that the accident
falls within the definition of a hit and run accident under Section
161 of the Act that no negligence can be attributed to the insured
vehicle, and that the appellants have to approach the Claims
Enquiry Officer under the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The Insurance
Company also questioned the delay of forty-three days in lodging the
complaint and the absence of medical evidence connecting the
injuries to the death.
4. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2,
Exs.A1 to A6 and the testimony of RW1, held that no negligence
could be attributed to the rider of the motorcycle. PW2-the brother of
the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, admitted in clear terms
that the accident occurred only because of the sudden appearance of
an unknown Bolero vehicle and that there was no negligence on his
part. Based on that admission, the Tribunal held that the accident
was caused by an unidentified vehicle, and that the appellants ought
to have pursued their remedy only under the Solatium Scheme,
1989. The Tribunal further noted the unexplained delay in filing the
complaint and the absence of evidence establishing the nexus
between the injuries and the subsequent death.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the
record. Despite listing this matter under the caption "For Orders",
there is no representation for the respondents. This appeal is of the
year 2019. Hence, this appeal is disposed of on merits, basing on
the material available on record, without waiting for the respondents
to advance arguments.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the
Tribunal misread the evidence, failed to appreciate the medical
record, and ought to have accepted the version of PW1 that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of PW2. It is
further contended that the deceased died while undergoing
treatment, and therefore the Tribunal ought to have accepted the
causal link and awarded compensation.
7. On the other hand, the case set up before the Tribunal by the
2nd respondent-Insurance Company is supported by the evidence of
PW2 himself. PW2 categorically stated that the accident was not
caused on account of his negligence and that the motorcycle did not
come into contact with any other vehicle. His own admission was
that, to avoid an unknown Bolero vehicle coming at high speed from
the opposite direction, he swerved the motorcycle and it turned
turtle. The Insurance Company contended that once negligence of
the rider is ruled out, the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act
is not maintainable, and that the appropriate remedy lies under the
Solatium Scheme.
8. A perusal of the record shows that the evidence of PW2 is
decisive. He was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and
is a competent witness to speak to its cause. His deposition leaves no
scope to attribute negligence to him. When the case of the claimants
themselves is that the accident occurred due to the sudden
appearance of an unknown vehicle, the claim petition under Section
166 of the Act cannot be sustained. The Act makes a clear
distinction between cases where negligence of the identifiable vehicle
is established, and cases where the offending vehicle remains
unknown. The latter category is dealt with separately under Sections
161 and 163 of the Act. The Tribunal, on this basis, held that the
claim petition is not maintainable under Section 166 of the Act. That
finding is supported by the evidence. The delay of forty-three days in
lodging the complaint, though not fatal in all cases, becomes relevant
in the present case, as it reinforces the Tribunal's conclusion that
the narrative sought to be projected was inconsistent with the
evidence of the rider. The medical record placed before the Tribunal
also did not establish that the death was entirely attributable to the
injuries sustained in the accident. The cause of death mentioned is
"cardio-pulmonary arrest," without any medical opinion linking it to
the injuries alleged.
9. On re-appreciation of the material, this Court finds no reason
to differ from the findings arrived by the Tribunal that the claimants
failed to establish rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle and
that the accident clearly falls within the hit and run category. Once
the accident is held to be a hit and run case, the Tribunal cannot
grant compensation under Section 166 of the Act. The statutory
remedy is only under the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The order of the
Tribunal is in accordance with law and does not call for interference
by this Court.
10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed by confirming the
impugned order passed by the Tribunal. However, it is made clear
that the appellants are at liberty to approach the competent
authority under the Solatium Scheme, 1989, and seek appropriate
relief in accordance with law.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 01.12.2025
scs
