\ IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3559 OF 2005 BETWEEN:- V. Himagiri Babu, S/o. Vengamanaidu, Hindu, aged about 27 years, Constable, R/o. 19-4-123/11 A, Rayalaseemanagar, Bairagipatteda Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. V. Dharma Murthy, S/o. V. Veerappa, aged not known, R/o.D.No.113/3, R.C. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, D.No.157-A, First Floor, P.K. Layout, Tirupati, Chittoor District. (R.1 died for Default vide Court Order Dt.06/01/2012.) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated: 09/08/2005 passed in M.V. O.P.No.120 of 2002 on file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Tirupathi. Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the lower Court and the material evidence on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Rama Mohan Rao Kotha-for the Respondent No.1, and Sri. P. Harinath Gupta for the Respondent No.2. 1 '• /■ I' This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the Appeal be and is hereby Dismissed; 2. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/-SHAIKMOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Tirupathi. 2. Three C.D Copies. SSL vna HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 ANDH^ a c AUG 2n?5 ^ Curreni oeciion ^ X f DECREE MA.CMA.NO.3559 OF 2005 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI •r-i MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3559 OF 2005 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1973, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated: 09/08/2005 passed in M.V. O.P.No.120 of 2002 on file of the Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Tirupathi. BETWEEN:- V. Himagiri Babu, S/o. Vengamanaidu, Hindu, aged about 27 years. Constable, R/o. 19-4-123/11 A, Rayalaseemanagar, Bairagipatteda Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. V. Dharma Murthy, S/o. V. Veerappa, aged not known, R/o.D.No. 113/3, R.C. Road, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. 2. M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, D.No.157-A, First Floor, P.K. Layout, Tirupati, Chittoor District. (R.1 died for Default vide Court Order Dt.06/01/2012.) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. P. HARINATH GUPTA The Court made the following Judgment: APHC010421102005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) ^ #- [3311] Thursday, the Tenth Day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 3559 of 2005 Between: ...Appellant V. Himagiri Babu and ...Respondents V.Dharma Murthy and another Counsel for the appellant: 1 .Suresh Kumar Reddy Kaiava Counsel for the respondents: I.Rama Mohan Rao Kotha 2.P.Harinath Gupta The Court made the following: Judgment: This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle’s Act, 1988, (in short, ‘the M.V.Act’) against the decree and awrd dated 09.08.2005, dismissing the M.V.O.P. No. 120 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - V Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The appellant / claimant filed petition under Section 166 (1) (a) of the MV Act seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- with the contention that while he was proceeding by walk on 27.05.2001 at about 7.00 pm on the AIR stgtion 2. \ 2 BSB, J MAC.M.A.No.3559 of 2005 -road near Bhaskar reddy cement shop, Tirupati, rider of the motor cycle bearing No AP 03 J 0179 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant. The respondent No.1 is the alleged owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said motor cycle. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement opposing the claim mainly contending that the said motor cycle was not involved in the accident. It is further contended that the respondent No.1 was playing fraud on the Tribunal by implicating his motor cycle in the accident. The other contentions of the claimant were also denied. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW1 and Dr.M.Madan Mohan Reddy was examined as PW2. Ex A1 (Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.85 of 2001 of Tirupati Traffic Police Station), Ex.A2 (Certifed copy of wound certificate of petitionier), Ex.A3 (Certified copy of calender and judgment in C.C. No.318 of 2001 on the file of II Additional J.F.C.M. Tirupati), Ex.A4 (Discharge summary issued by Appollo Hospital, Chennai), Ex.A5 (Cerfied copy of charge sheet inC.C. No.318 of 2001 on the file of II Additional J.F.C.M. Tirupati), Ex.A6 (Bunch of medical bills for Rs. 1,83,927/-), Ex.A7 (Bunch of traveeling bills fro Rs.10,115/-), Ex.A8( Estimation certificate issued • by civil surgeion, Appollo, Hospital, Chennai) and Ex.A9 (Salary cerficate of petitioner) were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2, Administrative Officer was examined as RW1 and insurance policy produced by respondent No.2 was marked as Ex.BI. 4. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition observing that when the involvement of the vehicle in the accident is disputed there is heavy burden on the claimant to prove the same, but in the present case, the claimant who is police constable and not a layman, failed to duly prove the involvement of the vehicle in the accident as there was delay of 18 days in reporting the complaint with the police and the accident occurred in a busy area where shops and buildings were located and the claimant 3. was 3 BSBJ M.A.C.M.A.No.3559 of 2005 n conscious and furthermore, the accused in the crime No.85 of 2001 is L.Raga Raja Rao S/o Pedda Venkat Rao, against whom the charge sheet was i e , whereas the name of the accused mentioned in the FIR is totally different. ,.e J.Dharma Murthy s/o Veerappa. The Tribunal further observed that claiman had not examined any independent eye witness to prove Yamaha motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 J 0179. the involvement of the 5 Aggrieved by the award, this appeai was preferred mainiy contending that the Tribunal failed to consider that C.C No.318 of 2001 on the fiie of il of First Class, Tirupati ended in conviction of the 03 J 0179 for the offences punishable Additional Judicial Magistrate rider of the vehicle bearing number AP 134 (a) (b) of the MV Act, but, under the dismissing the claim the ground that there was delay in reporting the matter to the police. under Section 338 IPC and Section and assumption, the Tribunal erred in presumption merely on counsel for the appellant submitted that mere delay in filing fatal to the case of 6. The learned the complaint the claimant and placed reliance No 2590 of 2012 dated 04.04.2023, wherein the decision of Apex Court in considered. He further submitted that conviction of the before the police should not be treated as the decision of this Court in MACMA on Ravi Vs Badrinarayan 8^ others was laid charge sheet and the case ended in claimant to again prove the involvement of since the police accused, there is no need for the who drove the crime vehicle. In this regard, he the vehicle and the person placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ranjeet & another Vs Abdul Kayam Neb & another^ He further submitted that as the claimant reported to the police that he had fell unconscious and also that a two wheeler vehicle hit him, merely basing on the record that a four wheeler hit him while he was going on a motor cycle cannot be treated as evidence adverse to the when the insurance company had not taken any of the claimant, that too steps to examine the rider of the motor cycle as a case witness. In this regard, he ' Civil Appeal No. 1926 of 2011 dated 18.02.2011 ^ S.L.P.(C) No.10351 of 2019 dated 27.09.2019. I 4 BSBJ M.A.C.M.A.No.3559 of 2005 placed reliance on para 13 of the decision in M.A.C.M.A.No.2590 of 2012 as follows; “This Court views that the offending vehicle’s rider is the best person to speak about the manner of the accident or non-involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. The second respondent/ insurance company has not taken steps to prove its contention by summoning the offending vehicle's rider. A standard rule is for the claimant to prove negligence. But in accident cases, hardship is caused to the claimants as the actual cause of the accident is not known to them but is solely within the knowledge of the respondents who caused it. It will then be for the respondents to establish the accident was due to some other cause than their negligence. Given the discussion mentioned above, I do not find any substance in the appeal. I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed”. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the Tribunal had given detailed reasons as to how the claimant failed to establish that he sustained injuries in the manner he claimed. He submitted the reasons stated by the Tribunal that the claimant was not unconscious after the accident and he is a Police Constable and not a lay man and the place of accident is also a busy area where buildings and shops were located, but no independent witness was examined and that the manner of accident described in the history recorded in the wound certificate shows that the injured received the injury while he was going on Yamaha motor cycle being hit by four wheeler TATA Sumo, whereas according to the claimant while he was walking, he was hit by Yamaha motor cycle, submitted that the conviction recorded by the criminal case cannot be taken in the present case as proof of involvement of vehicle since there is difference in the name of the accused noted in the FIR in column No.7 as J.Pharma 7. He further 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3559 of 2005 Murthy, S/o Veerappa, whereas the accused who admitted the offence and against whom the charge sheet was laid is one L.Raja Rao, S/o Peda Venkat Rao. For these reasons and the other reasons recorded by the Tribunal in respect of involvement of the insured vehicle in the accident, he vehemently contended that the claimant had failed to prove that he suffered injuries due to the involvement of vehicle insured by the respondent No.2. It is true that there is no hard and fast rule that the delay in lodging FIR alone would be fatal to the case in a motor vehicle accident. However, when there is a delay since there is possibility of falsely implicating any vehicle to make monetary gain, the evidence should be carefully scrutinized to avoid any false implication. Irrespective of the failure of the insurance company to examine any witness to disprove the evidence led by the claimant, the evidence led by the claimant has to be examined in all possible ways to ensure the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. In this regard, each case is to be examined with reference to the evidence before the Tribunal and the facts and circumstances in that case. Not starting with a doubt merely because there is a delay of 18 days in lodging the complaint, when the evidence as a whole is considered, the observations made by the Tribunal are not found to be defective or improbable to be taken fresh the evidence on record. The claimant, except sticking to the point of his own case, failed to explain as to how the deviations are there in his own evidence. The case ended in conviction, not on holding trial on merits, but based on the 8. \ / / admission, that too, of a person who is not the accused originally noted in the FIR. The charge sheet also is silent as to why the name of the accused is changed from the one mentioned in the FIR to the one against whom the The criminal Court also failed to examine in that charge sheet was laid, regard. As such, in the light of the reasons stated by the Tribunal which are very detailed in meticulous particulars, the mere fact that the case ended in conviction cannot be taken as gospel truth to establish that such vehicle was involved in the accident. Therefore, in the present case, since the findi^ngs of 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.3559 of 2005 ^the Tribunal are not erroneous or perverse, or not vitiated as based on material extraneous to the record and this Court, after being satisfied with the evidence on record that the claimant failed to establish the case as he pleaded, does not see any reason to interfere with the award impugned in this appeal. 9. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. Sd/- SHAIK MOHD. RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Tirupathi. 2. One CC to Sri. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P Harinath Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Three C.D Copies. SSL vna HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 % 0 6 AUG 2075 m. •£®/ . Current «>ecuon JUDGMENT + DECREE MACMA.No.3559 of 2005 DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS