APHC010384782007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the sixteenth day of February Two thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1130 of 2007 and I.A.No.5 of 2007 (Cross Objections No.44169 of 2007) Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Appellant and Veerappagari Raghu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the appellant: 1. A. Malathi Counsel for the respondents: 1. A. Chandraiah Naidu The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 28.02.2007, in M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi. 2. Cross Objections No.44169 of 2007 were filed by the claimant / cross objector seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. The respondent No.1 is the claimant, the respondent No.2 is the respondent No.1 and the appellant is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. 4. The claimant filed petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 5. The case of the claimant, is briefly, as follows: On 27.07.2002 at about 3.30 p.m., while the petitioner was going on his motor cycle bearing No.TN 20 E 9063 on the Puttur to Narayanavanam main road, the mini lorry of the respondent No.1 bearing No.AP 03 T 6661 coming in the opposite direction, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, including fracture of right thigh and left leg tibia. He was admitted in the Government hospital, Puttur. Later, he was shifted to S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupathi, and also to Apollo Hospital, Chennai. He suffered permanent disability and unable to attend his general occupation. The case was reported to Narayanavanam police who registered a case in Cr.No.33 of 2002 under section 338 of I.P.C. The offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2. 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 6. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 7. The respondent No.2 filed a counter opposing the claim, mainly contending that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 was not involved in the accident, as per the complaint given by V.Lokanadham Reddy who is the brother of the petitioner. The accident occurred due to involvement of an unknown vehicle. 8. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW.1, and also examined five more witnesses, i.e., PWs 2 to 6 PW.1 : Veerappagari Raghu PW.2 : K.Ramesh Babu PW.3 : Dr.Madan Mohan Reddy PW.4 : P.S.Arunkumar PW.5 : Dr.Dharmarajan PW.6 : T.Mohan Reddy The claimant filed documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to A9 and got marked the discharge summary as Ex.C1. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R; Ex.A2 is the certified copy of wound certificate; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A4 is the bunch of medical bills 95 in number worth Rs.3,30,725.82 paise; Ex.A5 is the travel bills 34 in number worth Rs.6,200/-; Ex.A6 is the discharge summary; Ex.A7 is the P.D. Certificate issued by Dr. S.Dharmarajan, Neuro Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Chennai; Ex.A8 is the P.D. Certificate issued by Dr.Madan Mohan Reddy, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Apollo Hospital, Chennai; Ex.A9 is the bunch of investigations and prescriptions; and Ex.C1 is the discharge summary. 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 9. On behalf of the respondent No.2, G.Chinnanna was examined as RW1 and a copy of the policy of insurance was marked as Ex.B1. 10. After hearing both the parties and considering the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry of the respondent No.1 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,62,000/- payable with interest @ 7.5 % p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realisation and the costs. 11. Aggrieved by the award and the decree, this appeal was filed by the respondent No.2 mainly challenging the involvement of the vehicle. 12. Sri Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel assisting the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claimant had not given complaint, whereas his brother Lokanatham Reddy had given complaint to the police reporting that he had been informed by K.Prakash, who, in turn, was informed about the accident by some unknown person as the charge sheet was filed against the driver of this mini lorry on the ground that Y.Desi reddy / LW3 and D.Sriramulu / LW4 had informed about the involvement of this mini lorry. He further submitted that the claimant failed to examine his brother or K.Prakash or Y.Desi Reddy, or D.Sriramulu or the investigating officer to discharge the initial burden on the claimant to prove that this vehicle was involved in the accident, keeping in view the denial by the respondent No.2 about the involvement of this vehicle in the accident. 13. He further submitted that Sri K.Ramesh Babu, examined as PW2, is not at all an eye witness, but he was styled as an eye witness before the Tribunal; and that had he been an eye witness he would have been 5 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 examined by the investigating officer and his name would have been in the list of witnesses shown in the charge sheet. He further submitted that the decision relied on by the Tribunal to fasten burden on the respondent No.2 to prove non-involvement of this vehicle in the accident is inapplicable to the case on hand and that it is the initial burden of the claimant to prove the involvement of the vehicle and thereafter onus would shift to the insurance company to prove its case, however, the Tribunal erroneously placed the burden on the insurance company. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / claimant / cross objector submitted that the Tribunal rightly observed that the subject matter vehicle was involved in the accident since the insurance company failed to discharge its burden by examining the investigating officer. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to grant adequate compensation in spite of evidence that the claimant suffered permanent disability and therefore, the quantum of compensation as fixed by the Tribunal @ 20% shall be increased to 100%. 15. In this appeal, involvement of the vehicle is in serious dispute. Admittedly, the claimant fell unconscious and he did not observe the vehicle which dashed him. The informant to the police also had no personal knowledge of the vehicle involved in the accident and therefore, the report was against the driver of an unknown vehicle. Though the investigating officer mentioned that there were some fibre pieces found at the place of the accident, he did not mention that any examination of the alleged vehicle was held by the Motor Vehicle Inspector so as to correlate the disputed vehicle with the vehicle which caused the accident. This is a crucial piece of evidence, which would have linked the material found at the place of the accident to the 6 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 involvement of the vehicle said to have caused the accident. Merely basing on the alleged eye witnesses, L.Ws.3 & 4, the charge sheet was laid showing the subject vehicle as the one which caused the accident. 16. Though the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a beneficial legislation and a lenient approach is adopted while considering the case and appreciating the evidence, no liability can be fastened against a person without involvement in the accident. As rightly contended by the learned counsel arguing on behalf of the appellant, the material witnesses were not examined by the claimant. The burden is wrongly placed on the insurance company to summon the investigating officer to dispute the involvement of the vehicle by relying on the decision in New India Insurance Company Vs. Vijaya Lakshmi and others1 which was referred in the context of the petition filed by the insurance company to summon the investigating officer to prove its defence. It was held in the cited decision as follows: “It is no doubt true that the investigating officer cannot go beyond the document which he has filed into Court and the evidence of an investigating officer may not be of much use for the prosecution in each and every case. But, in a case of this nature where there is a specific allegation that the vehicle in question is not the vehicle which caused the accident and that the claimants have wrongly implicated the said vehicle, the best person to speak about the same is the investigating officer who registered the accident as a crime and conducted 1 1 ( 2001) ACC 602 7 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 investigation. In such a situation, the evidence of the investigating officer on a perusal of the case diary maintained by him would be crucial and would form an important piece of evidence. Therefore, there is no harm in summoning the investigating officer along with the relevant record and examining him in the Court. If the investigation reveals that the vehicle in question is not the vehicle which had actually caused the accident, non- examination of the investigation officer in such a situation would certainly cause great prejudice to the case of the insurance company. But, on the other hand, if the record does not reveal anything adverse to the case set up by the revision petitioner, then no harm would be caused to either party. Therefore, I am of the view that the Court below ought to have allowed the petition. “ By no stretch of imagination, it can be understood to mean that there is such a burden on the insurance company or to understand that failure to take such steps would cast any doubt on the defence taken or would be treated as failure to discharge the burden. Except filing the charge sheet, no other document was filed nor was any evidence placed by the claimant to clinchingly establish the involvement of the subject vehicle in the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the subject matter vehicle caused the accident is liable to be set aside. Consequently, the liability on the insurance company does not survive. 17. Of course, the insured / respondent No.2 had not contested the matter before the Tribunal. As such, the insurance company had to bear the burden of paying half of the decretal amount to the account of 8 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 & Cross objections No.44169 of 2007 this case as a condition precedent for availing the benefit of interim order of stay, dated 19.06.2007, granted in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.2632 of 2007. As per the order, dated 01.05.2008, the claimant was permitted to withdraw Rs.75,000/- out of the amount so deposited. Therefore, the rest of the amount would be available in the account. As such, the appellant / insurance company can be permitted to withdraw the balance amount lying in the account, whereas the amount already withdrawn by the claimant can be recovered from the insured by filing an execution petition without filing a suit. For the same reasons, the cross objections are not sustainable. 18. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1130 of 2007 is allowed. The award and the decree, dated 28.02.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tirupathi, are set aside as against the respondent No.2 therein, permitting the appellant / insurance company to withdraw the balance amount lying in the account and to recover the amount already withdrawn by the claimant from the insured by filing an execution petition without filing a suit. 19. The cross objections No.44169 of 2007 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt. 16.02.2026 GRL / RAR