APHC010044592004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Twelfth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1192 of 2004 Between: Veluru Subbaramaiah ...Appellant and Modem Venkataramanaiah and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. Sudeepthi Potluri Counsel for the respondents: 1. N. Rama Krishna The Court made the following: 2 C.M.A.No.1192 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short „the Act‟) filed against the decree and the award dated 08.01.2004 in O.P.No.947 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur, filed under Section 166 of the Act, seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the claimant is, briefly stated, as follows:- On 25.04.2000 at about 6.00 A.M., when the claimant was proceeding in a tractor bearing No.AP 04 T 8509 and trailer AP 04 T 8510 to fetch green manure, the driver drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the tractor-trailer turned turtle and the appellant fell down. He received injuries on his forehead and fracture injury to his right hand and another bleeding injury to his left eye. He was taken to Government Hospital, Sidhout where he took first aid. He was advised to go to Sarojanidevi Hospital, Hyderabad. The claimant went to the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad where his right hand was fixed with bandage. He also visited Sarojanidevi Eye Hospital where his left eye was removed and artificial eye was fixed. He took treatment as inpatient for 1 ½ month and he visited Sarojanidevi Eye Hospital for 15 days. He is unable to lift any article with his right hand due to fracture injury. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the tractor. The claimant was earning Rs.50,000/- per annum from his five acres of land. After the accident, he is unable to do agriculture work. He filed a separate petition under Section 140 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 3 C.M.A.No.1192 of 2004 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. The respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the case of the claimant and putting him to prove the facts affirmed by him and further specifically pleading that though the accident occurred on 25.04.2000, the complaint was lodged on 28.05.2000 and the owner of the tractor had not obtained permission to ply the tractor and trailer in the forest and violated the terms of policy consequent to which the insurance company is not liable. It is pertinent to mention that insurance company pleaded that it had come to know that Srinivasulu was driving the tractor at the time of the accident and that he had no valid licence at the time of accident. 6. The claimant was examined as P.W.2 and the orthopaedician and expert as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. P.W.1:Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah. P.W.2: Vellore Subba Ramaiah. Ex.A1: Disability certificate issued by Dr.G.Venkata Subbaiah Ex.A2: X-Ray film. Ex.A3: Certified copy of wound certificate issued by Sarojanidevi hospital, Hyderabad. Ex.A4: Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.51 of 2002, Sidhout Police Station. Ex.A5: Certified copy of charge sheet. Ex.A6: Xerox copy of medico legal record issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. 4 C.M.A.No.1192 of 2004 7. No evidence was placed by the respondent No.2. 8. After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the petition due to suspicion about occurrence of the accident by observing that the F.I.R. was lodged with abnormal delay, though the claimant was not completely bed ridden & was, in fact, in a position to move and go to the hospital and holding that the claimant failed to establish that there was an accident on 25.04.2000. 9. Aggrieved by the decree and the award, the appeal was preferred by the claimant contending that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence and erroneously concluded that the claimant failed to prove occurrence of the accident despite the evidence of F.I.R. (Ex.A4), the charge sheet (Ex.A5) and the medico legal record (Ex.A6) filed by the claimant. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claim petition was dismissed solely under the suspicion of the occurrence of the accident, totally ignoring the evidence placed by the claimant and the pleading taken by the respondent No.2. 11. Though the notice was served on the respondent No.1, no appearance has been made. In fact, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the award of the Tribunal. He further submitted that the claimant was silent as to in what capacity he was travelling in the tractor and that the claimant, having taken the tractor on lease, stepped into the shoes of its owner and therefore, he cannot raise a claim, being the owner of the insured vehicle. 5 C.M.A.No.1192 of 2004 13. According to the claimant, the accident occurred on 25.04.2000, whereas the complaint was lodged on 28.05.2000. The police registered F.I.R. and filed charge sheet after the investigation. The documents under Ex.A4 to A6 are undisputed. The insurance company could not show how these documents are not genuine, except the delay in lodging F.I.R. Apart from the delay, it is necessary to examine the pleading of the insurance company in its written statement. It pleaded that it had come to know that Srinivasulu was driving the tractor at the time of the accident and he had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Thereby, it is a clear admission of occurrence of the accident and also the involvement of the said tractor in that accident. The Tribunal totally ignored the evidence under not only Ex.A4, but also Exs.A5 and A6 and the pleading in the written statement. The fact of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and common sense to lodge F.I.R. shortly after the accident have severely influenced the Tribunal to conclude that the claimant failed to establish occurrence of the accident. In addition to it, the Tribunal suspected the involvement of the tractor in the accident as the claimant mentioned in the F.I.R. that he had taken the tractor on lease and that the tractor did not bear any number, but its number was mentioned in the claim petition. If the respondent No.2 has not pleaded as noted above, and there is no medico legal record, there is justification in the finding of the Tribunal. Moreover, no evidence was placed by the respondents. In view of the discussion above made, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. 14. However, it is to be examined whether the claimant can make a claim under Section 166 of the Act, if he has taken the tractor on lease from its registered owner-cum-insured. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the pleading of the claimant is that he boarded the tractor to fetch green manure and therefore, he cannot be considered as its owner. 6 C.M.A.No.1192 of 2004 16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the evidence, as is recorded by the Tribunal in the award, shows that the claimant had taken the tractor on lease and thereby he cannot raise a claim against himself. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer the definition of owner under Section 2 (30) of the Act which defines the word „owner‟ as – “owner means a person in whose name a motor vehicle stands registered, and where such person is a minor, the guardian of such minor, and in relation to a motor vehicle which is the subject of a hire-purchase, agreement, or an agreement of lease or an agreement of hypothecation, the person in possession of the vehicle under that agreement.” 17. A claim under Section 166 of the Act can be raised against the insurance company by a third party only, unless special premium is paid in certain cases and it cannot be raised by a person standing in the position of owner of a vehicle which is said to have involved in the accident, unless premium is paid for personal accident. The present case is not covered by any such ground. Since the claimant is covered by the definition „owner‟ in relation to the vehicle said to be involved in this case, being its hirer, his claim is not maintainable. So, there is no reason to interfere with the result of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition. 18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 12.03.2026 GRL / NSM 7 C.M.A.No.1192 of 2004 137 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1192 of 2004 Dated: 12.03.2026 GRL / NSM