1 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. APHC010528882021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 7/2022 Between: 1. DASI MANIKYAM, W/O LATE DASI. NARASIMNA MURTHY, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 52 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-69/1, VARIGHEDU, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. DASI NAGESWARA RAO, S/O LATE DASI NARASIMHA MURTHY, HINDU, MALE, AGED 31 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-69/1, VARIGHEDU, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. VINJE. VENKATA LAKSHMI, D/O LATE DASI NARASIMHA MURTHY, HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF URADALIAPALEM, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 4. DASI NAGA RAJU, D/O LATE DASI NARASIMHA MURTHY, HINDU, FEMALE. AGED 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-69/1, VARIGHEDU, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. DASI LAVANYA, D/O LATE DASI NARASIMHA MURTHY, HINDU, FEMALE. AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-6911, VARIGHEDU, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. DASI PADMINI, D/O LATE DASI NARASIMHA MURTHY, .HINDU, FEMALE, AGED 20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.2-6911, VARIGHEDU, ATTILI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT(S) 2 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. AND 1. MURALA NAVEEN KUMAR, S/O ANNA RAO, HINDU, MALE, AGED 24 YEARS. RIDER OF HERO HONDA PLEASURE BEARING NO.AP 37 AX 2248, COMPOUNDER OF KANTHI ENT HOSPITALS, DOOR NO.34-13- 11, GAMINI COMPLEX, RP ROAD, TANUKU. 2. DR KANTHETI NVSS MAHA LAKSHMI, W/O DR.K.RANGAM CHETTY, HINDU, FEMALE, AGE NOT KNOWN, DOOR NO.34-13-11, KANTHI ENT HOSPITALS, GAMINI COMPLEX, RP ROAD. TANUKU. OWNER OF HERO HONDA PLEASURE BEARING NO.AP 37 AX 2248.. 3. ICICI LAMBARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. (POLICY NO. 3005/16732103/10573/000, VALID UPTO 31-07-2013 AT ELURU BLANCH) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Appellant(S): 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. O.S.NAGESWARA RAO 2. GUDI SRINIVASU 3. The Court made the following: 3 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 7/2022 J U D G M E N T: 1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (for short MACMA) has been preferred by the Appellants/applicants being aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 08.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.49 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short MACT) –cum- IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku, wherein the tribunal dismissed the claim of petitioners. For the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal i.e., Appellants as Petitioners and Respondents as Respondents. 2. The 1st Petitioner being wife and petitioners No.2 to 6 being son and daughters of Late. Dasi Narasimha Murthy, filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Narasimha Murthy in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.12.2012. 3. Brief averments of the claim petition in MVOP No.49 of 2014 are that:- on 05.12.2012 at about 5.30 P.M, the Compounder of Kranthi Hospitals by name M.Naveen Kumar (1st respondent) was ordered by his owner Smt. N.V.S.S.Maha Lakshmi (2nd respondent) to go to Reliance Mart and the deceased Narasimha Murthy was ordered to accompany him and as such, both 4 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. of them went to Mart. While returning, the said Narasimha Murthy was a pillion rider and the said Naveen Kumar (1st respondent) was the rider of Hero Honda Pleasure motor cycle bearing No.AP 37 AX 2248 and when the said Naveen Kumar (1st respondent) rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the deceased Narasimha Murthy turned turtle. He sustained injuries and while getting treatment he succumbed to injuries. The petitioners averred that the deceased Narasimha Murthy was the sole bread winner of the family and thus they sought compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. On notice, Respondents No.1 and 2 filed counter contending that there was no accident as alleged by the petitioners. They denied their liability in payment of compensation. 5. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed written statement denying it’s liability stating that the deceased Narasimha Murthy did not die as a result of accident involving vehicle bearing No.AP 37 AX 2248. It also contended that the 1st respondent - Naveen Kumar did not own proper license and the 2nd respondent - Maha Lakshmi ought not to have allowed the 1st respondent - Naveen Kumar to drive the vehicle. It sought to dismiss the petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial by the tribunal- 5 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. 1) Whether the accident in question took place on 05.12.2012 at about 5.30 P.M., due to rash and negligent driving of Motor cycle bearing No. AP37 AX 2248 driven by it’s driver/1st respondent? 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation claimed for the death of the deceased in the accident? If so, to what amount? 3) Which respondent is liable to pay the compensation amount? 4) To what relief? 7. During enquiry the 1st petitioner - Manikyam got examined herself as PW.1, one S.Kalakanthudu got examined as PW.2 and P.Durga Rao got examined as PW.3. The petitioners got marked Ex.A1: Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.263/2012; Ex.A2: Attested copy of Post Mortem Certificate; Ex.A3: Attested copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex.A4: Attested Copy of Charge Sheet in Cr.No.263/2012. The 2nd respondent - Maha Lakshmi got examined herself as R.W.1 and P.V.Rama Krishna, Manager (Legal) of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company got examined as R.W.2, and got marked Ex.B1: Certified copy of Judgment in C.C.No.187/2013; Ex.B2: Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No.263/2012; Ex.B3: Copy of Policy bearing No.3005/16732103/10573/0000 valid up to 31.7.2013 in respect of motor cycle bearing No.AP 31 AX 2248 issued by 3rd respondent Insurance Company. 6 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. 8. Upon hearing both sides, upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the Petitioners, without costs, by holding that the deceased - Narasimha Murthy did not die as a result of motor vehicle accident. 9. The impugned Judgment and Decree dismissing the claim of the Appellants/Petitioners against the Respondents is erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 10. Being aggrieved by the said Order and Decree, the Petitioners preferred the present appeal on the grounds that - The Tribunal grossly erred in not granting the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- as claimed by the Appellants/ Petitioners by dismissing the claim petition on the ground the FIR in Cr.No.263/2012 discloses that the deceased sustained injuries as he fell down from steps but not in a motor vehicle accident and without considering alteration memo filed on conducting Inquest over dead body of deceased it was altered for an offence under section 304 of IPC. The Tribunal grossly erred in not taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimants/ Appellants from proper perspective and erred in entirely believing the version of Insurance Company that no accident took place as alleged. 11. Heard both sides and perused the material in record. 7 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. 12. Now the point for determination is: Whether the Order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. It is the argument of learned Counsel for the Appellants/claim petitioners that the deceased was working as a Watchman, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and died while undergoing treatment. The F.I.R was registered as if the deceased fell down from stair case as informed by the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent to avoid compensation, as 1st respondent has no valid driving license and 2nd respondent allowed 1st respondent who has no valid driving license to ride the motor cycle. Later, through alteration memo they changed the occurrence of incident due to accident, the tribunal failed to consider the same. 14. Claimant No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1, who categorically deposed that on 05.12.2012 at about 05.30 P.M., the Compounder of Kranthi Hospitals (respondent No.1 herein) was ordered by his owner, who is respondent No.2, to go to Reliance Mart and the deceased was ordered to accompany him, as such both of them went to Mart and while returning, respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the vehicle turned turtle, as a result of which, the deceased sustained injuries and died on 28.12.2012. 8 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. 15. P.W.1 got marked Exs.A.1 to A.4 and also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3. P.W.2 who was driving the vehicle as well as eyewitness has also stated that on 05.12.2020 at about 05.30 P.M., the deceased sat as a pillion rider and while returning from Reliance Mart, respondent No.1 drove the vehicle bearing No.AP 37 AX 2248 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the deceased fell down and sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment. P.W.3 also deposed on the same lines. 16. Respondent No.3 – Insurance Company contended that there was no accident and that the deceased fell down from steps and when he sustained injuries, he got treated at hospital and on 28.12.2012 he died, but the claimants managed the police and got registered the case in Crime No.263 of 2012, as such insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No.3 got examined their Manager (Legal) as R.W.2, who deposed that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent and that the deceased fell down from stairs accidentally and sustained injuries, so that the claim petition is not maintainable. 17. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, she admitted that her son gave report to the police that his father (deceased) fell down from the stairs accidentally and sustained injuries. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 also stated that after the so called accident, he shifted the injured to the hospital. 9 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. 18. As stated earlier, in Ex.A.1 - FIR, it was stated that the deceased fell down from the stairs and sustained injuries. Even as per the material on record, police received Hospital intimation on 28.12.2012 at 10.15 p.m. that the deceased fell down from the stairs and while undergoing treatment he died at 07.30 P.M. on 28.12.2012, on receipt of the same, police registered a case in Crime No.263 of 2012 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., subsequently, after conducting inquest police changed the section of law from Section 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 304-A of I.P.C. Later, police filed Ex.A.4 - charge sheet against respondent No.1 – driver of the vehicle and respondent No.2 – owner of the vehicle. It was mentioned that respondent No.1 drove the vehicle bearing No.AP 37 AX 2248 in a rash and negligent manner and it was the cause for the accident. 19. Respondents filed certified copy of judgment in C.C.No.187 of 2013 (relating to Crime No.263 of 2012), which was marked as Ex.B.1, wherein it was observed as under: “though first information shows that the deceased Narasimha Murthy fell from the steps of apartment, the Investigating Officer did not make an enquiry of it and though the FIR was registered on 29.12.2010 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., and though it was altered for an offence under Section 304 of IPC after conducting inquest over the dead body of deceased at 5.30 P.M., on 29.12.2012 itself when the Investigating Officer examined the scene of offence at 11.00 a.m., he has noted as if the 10 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. deceased died as a result of Motor Vehicle Accident which was beyond imagination”. 20. The trial Court observed that the version of the prosecution that the deceased died as a result of Motor Vehicle Accident cannot be believed. Further, the trial Court observed that Sub-Inspector of Police had conducted investigation in a careless and negligent manner and without proper evidence, he implicated accused Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein). In C.C.No.187 of 2013, the trial Court had categorically found that there was no accident as stated by the prosecution. 21. The claimants have not filed any material to show that they have preferred appeal against the judgment in C.C.No.187 of 2013 to prove that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and died. Therefore, relying on the judgment in C.C.No.187 of 2013, the Tribunal held that as the deceased fell down from the stairs and sustained injuries, while undergoing treatment he died, the petitioners cannot invoke the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable. 22. Taking into consideration the copy of Ex.A.1 - F.I.R., which is the initial report given by the son of the deceased, who categorically stated that the deceased fell down from the stairs and while undergoing treatment he died. Even 11 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. as per the material on record, it can be observed that the police received hospital intimation that the deceased fell down from the stairs. But, the police filed charge sheet against respondent No.1 in collusion with the petitioners to get compensation under the M.V Act. The entire material on record establishes that the deceased fell down from the stairs and sustained injuries and died while undergoing treatment. 23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition is well reasoned and needs no interference. 24. Accordingly, the Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA KS Dated 09.02.2026. 12 MACMA NO.7 of 2022 VS,J. 459 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 7/2022 DATED 09.02.2026 KS