Telangana High Court
Korva Sailu vs Neeradi Raju on 21 November, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.555 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the order and decree dated
17.11.2018 passed in O.P.No.948 of 2008 by the Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge,
Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed
the claim petition.
2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on
11.09.2008 at about 3.15 a.m., while he was travelling in a Maruti
Omni van bearing No.AP-25-TV-0523, the driver drove the vehicle in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against a parked lorry near Goel
Petrol Pump, Medchal Check-post, resulting in grievous injuries to the
claimant. He was shifted to Balaji Hospital, Secunderabad and treated
as an inpatient. Claiming that the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the driver, the claimant sought compensation of
Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal after full-fledged enquiry dismissed the
claim petition. Hence the appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
erred in dismissing the claim petition without properly appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence placed on record. It is contended that
even though the claimant consistently stated that the accident occurred
on 11.09.2008 and the medical record, including the MLCs and
discharge summaries, reflect treatment for injuries sustained in the
said road accident, the Tribunal placed undue emphasis on certain
discrepancies in the police papers, which are not fatal to the claim. It is
further contended that the claimant cannot be penalised for the manner
in which the police recorded the date in their documents and that the
Tribunal ought to have accepted the version supported by the medical
evidence and the testimony of the doctors. Thus the learned counsel
submitted that the finding that the accident did not occur on
11.09.2008 is unsustainable and the dismissal of the claim petition
warrants interference.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.2-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal was justified in
dismissing the claim petition, as the claimant failed to establish the
very occurrence of the accident on the date pleaded. It is pointed out
that the police records relied on by the claimant himself, including the
FIR, charge sheet and General Diary entries, consistently mention the
date of accident as 20.09.2008 but not 11.09.2008. It is contended that
the driver of the vehicle, in the criminal case, admitted to a date
contradictory to the claimant's version and the claimant did not
examine the police constable who allegedly shifted him to the hospital.
It is argued that the medical documents do not independently prove the
date of accident and that the inconsistencies in the claimant's own
evidence render his version unreliable. Thus the learned counsel
submitted that the Tribunal rightly held that the accident pleaded by
the claimant was not proved and ultimately prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
5. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether
the claimant established that the accident occurred on 11.09.2008 in
the manner pleaded, and consequently, whether the dismissal of the
claim petition calls for any interference.
6. A careful scrutiny of the record reveals that the main issue that
fell for consideration before the Tribunal was with regard to the date of
occurrence of the accident. The claimant rested his case entirely on the
accident allegedly occurring on 11.09.2008. However, the police
documents relied on by him, including the FIR and the charge sheet,
disclose the date as 20.09.2008. The General Diary entries marked
before the Tribunal also did not support the date of 11.09.2008. The
driver, examined as PW-6, had faced criminal proceedings wherein the
date recorded was not 11.09.2008. These are all contemporaneous
official records and cannot be lightly discarded.
7. The medical evidence relied on by the claimant, though indicative
of treatment for injuries suffered in a road traffic accident, does not
independently establish the exact date or the circumstances of the
occurrence. The doctors examined could not affirm the signatures on
the MLCs nor specify the age of injuries in a manner that would fix the
accident on 11.09.2008. The claimant did not examine the police
constable who allegedly shifted him from the accident spot. His own
admission that he had earlier mentioned the date as 20.09.2008 in
prior proceedings further weakens his version.
8. The Tribunal considered the entire material and recorded a
categorical finding that the claimant failed to prove that the accident
took place on 11.09.2008 as pleaded. The burden rests on the claimant
to establish the basic parameters of the accident. When the date itself is
not proved and there are material inconsistencies between the claim
petition and the contemporaneous police documents, the Tribunal was
justified in holding that the very occurrence of accident pleaded by the
claimant had not been established. On overall consideration of the
evidence, this Court finds no reason to take a different view. The
Tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the claim. The
finding that the claimant did not prove the accident as alleged is a
finding of fact based on the evidence and does not warrant interference
in appellate jurisdiction.
9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
Date: 21.11.2025
SCS
