SIGATAPU RAJU v. GUDALA SATYANARAYANA @ SATHIBABU AND 2 OTHERS
MACMA/125/2006 · 2026-04-08
B S Bhanumathi
body2006
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2006 DAILYLAW 1653 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2006 DAILYLAW 1653 (AP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
APHC010098122006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No:125 of 2006 Between: Sigatapu Raju ...Appellant and Gudala Satyanarayana Sathibabu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant:
1. Venkat Challa Counsel for the respondents:
1. Nagumantri Nageswara Rao
2. T Ramulu The Court made the following:
2 M.A.C.M.A.No.125 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 21.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.84 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada.
2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. The claimant sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 15/16.01.2001 at the mid-night when he was allegedly hit by an auto bearing No.AP 5 X 2042.
3. All the three respondents appeared and the respondents Nos.2 and 3 filed counters but the respondent No.1 had not filed counter.
4. The claimant lodged the F.I.R. vide Ex.A1 reporting that he was hit by an unknown auto. Except filing Ex.A1, there is no other documentary evidence or independent oral evidence about the involvement of the vehicle in the accident.
5. Since no other evidence is filed, it is not known whether any further investigation was conducted by the police and found that said auto was involved in the accident.
6. Since except the nominal testimony of the claimant, there is no other independent evidence to show that said auto caused the accident, the Tribunal dismissed the petition.
7. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. In the result, the motor accident civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed.
3 M.A.C.M.A.No.125 of 2006
Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 09.04.2026 NSM
4 M.A.C.M.A.No.125 of 2006 81 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No:125 of 2006
Dated: 09.04.2026 NSM