APHC010176912004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Sixth day of March 2025 Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 771/2004 and Cross objections Between: New India Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Subedarpet, Nellore. ...Appellant. AND 1.V.V.Subba Reddy, s/o Subba Reddy, Hindu, 51 years, working as Driving Instructor In A.P.S.R.T.C zonal staff training college, Kakutur near Nellore, r/o Venkatachalam Village and mandal, Nellore District. 2.M/s.Reliable Road Links (P) Ltd., No.18, Krishnan Koil Street, Chennai, Rep.by its Managing Director. (Case against R2 is dismissed for default Vide order dated 23.03.2011) .... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: 1. V.V.N.Narasimham Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V. Narayana Reddy The Court made the following Judgment: 2 BSB,J CMA. No.771 of 2004 and Cross objections This appeal was preferred by the insurance company under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and decree dated 13.02.2003 in O.P.No.205 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman-Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nellore awarding compensation of Rs.76,000/- with interest thereon @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition i.e., 08.04.1999 till the date of realization and costs against the respondents No.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. This cross appeal in C.M.A No.771 of 2004 was filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order dated 13.02.2003 in O.P.No.205 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore. 02. The appellant is the second respondent. The 1st respondent is the claimant. The 2nd respondent is the 1st respondent before the Tribunal. 03. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: The claimant was working as a driving instructor in A.P.S.R.T.C, Zonal Staff Training College at Kakutur near Nellore and was earning salary of Rs.9,000/- per month. On 10.07.1997, at about 3.00 p.m, the claimant was driving RTC bus occupied by the trainees. When the bus reached the main gate of the college, a lorry bearing No.TN 04 A 4235 owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 2nd respondent, loaded with heavy gauged mild steel sheets was found stationed blocking the main gate passage. The claimant got down the bus and asked the driver of the lorry to move it. When the driver started the lorry, it fell down causing injuries to the claimant. He was admitted in the Government Head 3 BSB,J CMA. No.771 of 2004 and Cross objections Quarters Hospital, Nellore and later treated in the Government Hospital, Ongole and then in RTC hospital, Tarnaka, Hyderabad. The claimant became permanently disabled. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 04. The 1st respondent remained exparte. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the narration of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the lorry, driving licence of the driver of the lorry, age, avocation and income of the claimant, the medical expenses, the injuries and the insurance coverage. It was also pleaded that no crime was registered with regard to the alleged accident. 05. On behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as PW1 and two doctors were examined as PWs 2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A5 and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent P.G.S.T.D.Prasada Rao was examined as RW1. 06. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal allowed the petition as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was filed by the 2nd respondent questioning the liability mainly on the ground that the accident involving the vehicle insured by the appellant was not established. 07. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation to the 1st respondent/claimant i.e., the appellant in the cross objection. The appeal in so far against the 2nd respondent was dismissed on 23.03.2011. 4 BSB,J CMA. No.771 of 2004 and Cross objections 08. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal allowed the petition merely basing on the evidence of the claimant himself and the doctor who recorded in the history of the injury in the case sheet/Ex.X1 that the injuries were received when the lorry turned turtle and that unless the claimant received injuries in the lorry accident, there was no need for the doctors to write the same. He further submitted that unless there is clinching evidence that this particular lorry was involved in the accident, liability cannot be fastened. He further submitted that merely because the owner of the lorry remained exparte, liability cannot be fastened. 09. Perused the record. 10. As rightly contended by the appellant except the self serving statement of the claimant and an entry made in the history of the injury in the case sheet, there is no evidence to link the involvement of the insured vehicle with the accident. If the rash and negligent act resulted in the accident, a case must be registered basing on the information which should have been furnished from the government hospital to the police. If the crime is registered and reported to the Insurance company, it would have a chance to ascertain the truth of involvement of the vehicle. Since the trainees in the bus were said to be present, at least an independent witness also could be examined, more particularly in view of denial of the involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident. To make a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mere accident is not sufficient and rash and negligence of the driver shall be established. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in relying on mere uncorroborated evidence of PW1 and an entry in Ex.X1 5 BSB,J CMA. No.771 of 2004 and Cross objections which cannot corroborate the evidence of PW1 regarding the involvement of this particular lorry in the accident. Just because the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial legislation, the liability cannot be decided without there being evidence sufficient to establish to fasten liability. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside as against the appellant/2nd respondent before the Tribunal. As per the interim order dated 09.03.2004 in C.M.P.No.5433 of 2004, if any amount was deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by the 1st respondent, the same may not be recovered. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the cross objections were dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision petitions shall stand closed. ___________________ ___ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated 06.03.2025 GRL 6 BSB,J CMA. No.771 of 2004 and Cross objections 23 THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI C.M.A No771 of 2004 and Cross objections Date: 06.03.2025 GRL