APHC010413502009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighth day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No.1238 of 2009 Between: Yallamati Ananda Rao, son of Rathaiah, aged about 31 years, R/o Amarthuluru Mandal, Guntur District. and 1.R.Narendra, son of R.S.R owner of lorry No.AP 16- Commercial Tax colony, Gurunanak Nagar, Vijayawada Road, Krishna District. 2.National Insurance Co., Ltd. Represented by its Divisional Vijayawada Counsel for the appellant: 1. A.Rajendra Babu Counsel for the respondent 1.Nil 2.V.Hemanth Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the eighth day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi M.A.C.M.A No.1238 of 2009 Yallamati Ananda Rao, son of Rathaiah, aged about 31 years, R/o.Kuchipudi village, Amarthuluru Mandal, Guntur District. ..Appellant / Petitioner 1.R.Narendra, son of R.S.R.Prasad, -TW-2447, flat No.75, Commercial Tax colony, Gurunanak Nagar, Vijayawada Road, Krishna District. 2.National Insurance Co., Ltd. Represented by its Divisional Manager, ..Respondents ppellant: espondents: [3311] Tuesday, the eighth day of July, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Yallamati Ananda Rao, son of Rathaiah, Kuchipudi village, Petitioner .Prasad, ..Respondents 2 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2009 The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: This appeal was filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 27.02.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.1350 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur at Tenali filed claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries suffered by the appellant / claimant in a motor vehicle accident. 2. The case of the claimant is briefly as follows: On 04.07.2007, at 11.30 p.m.when he was going by foot on the left side of the road after attending the calls of nature, a lorry bearing No.AP-16-TW- 2447, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant suffered both fracture and crush injury to his left leg and foot and therefore he was initially admitted in the Government Hospital, Guntur and later shifted to Amruta Nursing Home, Tenali and thereafter he was treated by Dr.Sambasiva Rao, yet suffered disability. He used to work as a welder and earn Rs.3,000/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to earn as much as before the accident. 3. The 1st respondent / owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent / insurance company filed written statement denying the claim of the petitioner and further stating that the claimant has to establish the involvement of the lorry said to be involved in the accident. 4. On behalf of the appellant, he got himself examined as PW1. Dr.V.V.Narayana was examined as PW2 to speak about the treatment 3 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2009 and disability. The claimant filed Exs.A1 to A9 and got marked Ex.X1 and X2 through PW2. Ex.A1: Certified copy of F.I.R Ex.A2: Certified copy of charge sheet Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate Ex.A4: Lab report Ex.A5: Cash Receipts Ex.A6: Medical Bills Ex.A7: Medical Prescription (Bill) Ex.A8: Medical certificate Ex.A9: X-Rays. Ex.X1: Case sheets Adarsha Hospital, Guntur Ex.X2: Case sheet issued by Government General Hospital, Guntur. 5. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined. 6. Though the Tribunal found that the petitioner suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 04.07.2007 and that his claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is quite reasonable, the petition was dismissed holding that the involvement of the lorry bearing No.AP-16 TW-2447 had not been established by examining the person who gave the complaint to the police under the original of Ex.A1. Aggrieved by the award dismissing the claim, this appeal was filed by the claimant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant filed not only a copy of the F.I.R., but also a copy of the charge sheet which was filed by the investigating officer and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim, particularly as the claimant himself is the eye witness and that the 2nd respondent had not disputed the accident. He further submitted that the lorry was stationed at the 4 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2009 place of the accident and therefore the identity need not be suspected and moreover, this fact was reported in the complaint itself to the police. 8. The notice sent to the 1st respondent was returned unserved, though it was sent to the same address as before the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the claimant has to strictly prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident, but had failed to do so and that the medico legal case had not been intimated by the Hospital authority to the police as observed by the Tribunal in its award. He further submitted that the petitioner had not proved his age, occupation and income. 9. The main question is the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. By and large, the injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatment taken by him was not in dispute. The insurance company did not prefer any appeal or file cross objection challenging the finding of the Tribunal that the quantum of compensation claimed is reasonable. Since the Tribunal found the total amount of compensation sought by the claimant as reasonable, the said finding was also not challenged by the appellant. Therefore, now the aspect relating to the quantum of compensation need not be gone into. 10. In so far as the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is concerned, it is only the claimant as a sole witness, being an eye witness to the accident, deposed about the involvement of the lorry in the accident. His evidence is corroborated by the contents of Exs.A1 and A2. It is not the case that the petitioner was unconscious at the time of the accident. The fact that the lorry was stationed at the place of the accident was not in dispute. The complaint was lodged by an eye witness who accompanied the claimant at the time of the accident. The 5 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2009 accident occurred at the midnight and the complaint was lodged at 9.00 p.m on the next day. No steps were taken by the 2nd respondent to summon the driver of the insured vehicle to deny the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. The police also laid charge sheet after the investigation in consonance with the narration of the accident in the complaint to the police. The only factor against the claimant is that the complaint to the police was lodged with delay of about 19.00 hours after the accident. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that false implication of the lorry in the accident was not made out. The evidence on record does not suggest the view that the lorry was falsely implicated to make wrongful gain by the claimant. Therefore, the award impugned in the appeal is liable to set aside and the claim be allowed against both the respondents. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award dated 27.02.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.1350 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Additional District Judge (F.T.C), Guntur at Tenali is set aside and the claim of the petitioner is allowed directing both the respondents to pay the petitioner Rs.1,50,000/- with interest thereon @ 7% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and costs throughout with joint and several liability. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 08.07.2025 GRL 6 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2009 82 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI M.A.C.M.A No.1238/2009 Date: 08.07.2025 GRL 7 BSB,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1238 of 2009