APHC010288222007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] TUESDAY, THE 21st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1627/2007 Between: 1. KURUVA CHINNA YELLAIAH, S/O JAMMANNA CHEMMANNA WORKING AS WEIGH MAN, KURNOOL AGRICULTURE MARKET YARD E/O PEDDAPADU VILLAGE, KALLUR MANDAL, KURNOOL DIST. ...APPELLANT AND 1. MD SYED, S/O MD. ABDUL SAMAD OWNER OF THE LORRY NO. AAQ 8473 H.NO.28/159 KAWADI STREET, KURNOOL. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, M/S THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, BHUPAL COMPLEX, KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court IA NO: 3 OF 2007(MACMAMP 26838 OF 2007 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased IA NO: 1 OF 2017(MACMAMP 3460 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased condone the delay of 360 days in preferring restoration petition for restoring the MACMA No.1627/2007 to the file as against Respondent No.1 by setting aside the dismissal orders dated 08.07.2016 in the interest of justice 2 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 IA NO: 2 OF 2017(MACMAMP 3461 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased set aside the dismissal orders dated 08.07.2016 as against Respondent No.1 and restore the MACMA No.1627/2007 to the file for adjudicating the same on merits as per law in the interest of justice Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M SATISH REDDY 2. V DURGA The Court made the following: 3 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1627/2007 JUDGMENT:- Being aggrieved by the impugned common order dated 23.11.2006 passed in M.V.O.P. Nos.110, 111 and 112 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, dismissing the claimants’ petitions on the ground that the claimants who are the injured and dependants of the deceased failed to establish the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. The Appellant/claimant approached this Court by way of appeal referred supra. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The claim petition in M.V.O.P. No.110 of 2005 was filed by the petitioner, who is the injured, seeking compensation on account of his injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the petitioner is that on 01.09.2004 the petitioner was returning to Kurnool on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-21-G-3833, after distribution of wedding cards at Linganaval village and when they reached near Uttara Feeds Factory, one lorry bearing registration No.AAQ-8473 came from opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the Suzuki motor cycle, due to which, the three members who were on 4 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 the motorcycle, received grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, all of them were shifted to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, but there Shaik Ghouse Basha succumbed to the injuries, Kuruva Chinna Yellalah sustained fracture of right thigh femur and abrasion and that he was treated as inpatient in the said hospital from 01-09-2004 to 21-09-2004 and his right leg was shortened by 4 inches and on that he developed limping, which is permanent disability and also due to the accident, Dandu Sunkanna sustained fractures of pelvic and right femur and abrasion and his right leg was shortened by 3 inches and on that he developed limping, which is also permanent disability. On receiving of complaint, case was registered in crime no.61/2004 against the driver of the offending vehicle U/Ss.304-A and 337 I.P.C. Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. 5. The second respondent contended that the accident occurred solely due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner, who allegedly did not possess a valid driving license. It was further contended that, despite the lorry driver's best efforts, the accident could not be averted, and that three persons were travelling on the motorcycle in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and permit conditions. The second respondent also asserted that, as per the F.I.R. and the petitioner's statement, it was a hit-and-run case and that the insured lorry was not involved in the accident. It denied the allegations 5 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 regarding the lorry's permit, registration, fitness certificate, insurance policy, and the driver's license, and further contended that the compensation claimed in all the petitions was excessive, praying for their dismissal. 6. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: M.V.O.P.110/2005; 1. Whether the accident dated 1-9-2004 took place near Uttara Foods Factory, on N.H.7 road at about 9.30 pm., was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AAQ-8473? (or) whether there was any negligence on the part of the driving of the motor cyclist bearing No.AP 21-G-3833? 2. Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation claimed, if not, what amount they are liable to pay to the petitioners, by virtue of the said accident? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the claimants P.W.1 to P.W.10 witnesses were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A14 are the documents marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 and Ex.X1 to X9 were marked. 8. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that 9. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred the present appeal contending that not liable to pay any compensation 6 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 10. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: “Whether the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference?” 11. The cursory look at the impugned order would show that immediately after the accident matter is forthwith reported to police. Police registered a criminal case in crime No.61 of 2004 of Manopad Police station. The police after due investigation, laid charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle. The concerned jurisdictional Magistrate court has taken cognizance under sections 304A and 338 I.P.C against the driver of the offending vehicle vide C.C.No.208 of 2004. 12. In order to prove the case, P.W.1 to P.W.10 witnesses were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A14 are the documents marked on behalf of the claimants. R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 and Ex.X1 to X9 were marked on behalf of the respondents. 13. In the First Information Report it is mentioned that it is a case of hit and run. The manner in which the accident occurred would show that while the deceased along with two others going on a Suziki motorcycle, one lorry came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle due to which the three passengers who were on the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. It is a natural version immediately after the accident since the driver of the lorry did not attend to the medical care of the injured and he left the place without attending. Subsequently, during the 7 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 course of investigation police examine the other witnesses and their investigation reveals that the offending lorry involved in the accident. 14. There is dispute regarding the fact that PW2 and 3 are the pillion riders at the time of accident. 15. PW.4 stated that he had engaged the offending lorry and was proceeding towards Hyderabad. He further deposed that, when they reached near Uttara Feeds, the said lorry dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in the death of one Ghouse Basha and causing injuries to C. Yellaiah and Sunkanna. PW.4 reiterated the same version by stating that he had engaged the lorry for transporting empty gunny bags from Kurnool to Shantinagar and Rajoli. 16. It is further noticed that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not choose to examine the Investigating Officer, who laid the charge sheet against the driver of the offending lorry, to elicit the circumstances under which the said vehicle came to be implicated in the case, particularly when the registration particulars of the lorry were not mentioned in the First Information Report. It is also an admitted fact that none of the injured persons lodged any report with the police disclosing the occurrence of the accident, the identity of the offending vehicle, or its driver. As observed earlier, the case, as projected by the petitioner, is one of a hit-and-run accident, wherein compensation has been claimed against the respondents. 8 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 17. One of the issues framed by this Court was whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing Registration No. AP-21-G-3833. Though the second respondent, in the separate counters filed in these claim petitions, specifically pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the negligent riding of the motorcycle by PW.2, no evidence whatsoever has been adduced in support of the said plea. In the absence of any such evidence, this Court is of the considered view that there is absolutely no material on record to hold that the accident in question occurred due to the negligent riding of the motorcycle by PW.2. 18. In this matter nevertheless to say that the burden to prove is heavily on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the version of the prosecution and to prove that the accused is the person who drove the offending vehicle and that too in rash and negligent manner at the time of accident. Unless these two points are established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt the accused cannot be offended. 19. It is true that these witnesses in C.C.No.208 of 2004 did not witness the driver of the lorry and have not observed the number of the lorry. These two statements are not appropriate to the evidence of the witnesses before the Tribunal and not contra to the First information report. It is nothing but natural when the driver of the lorry left the place and nothing about the covers about the accident by the police through one S.Pandu, Constable, Alampur cross road to the Station House officer, Manopad Police Station, it is stated that on 9 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 01.09.2004 while he was in outpost at Alampur cross road, some persons told him that one Suziki motorcycle met with an accident and three persons sustained injuries were on the road. On receipt of the said information he went there and admitted the injured persons in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool and on enquiry one Yellaiah, Sunkanna about the acceded, they stated that on that night after distributing wedding cards at Linganval village while they were proceeding to Kurnool on their Suziki motorcycle, at about 9.30 pm., one unknown lorry hit their motorcycle, resulting injuries to them and at the time of accident, Yellaiah was driving the said motorcycle and after their admission in the hospital, one Ghouse Basha died. 20. In the light of the evidence of the eyewitness, the statements of the injured persons, and the information received during the investigation, a crime was initially registered as a case of hit-and-run. Upon completion of the investigation, the offending lorry was traced and identified. The depositions of the witnesses recorded before the Criminal Court, marked as Exs. B2 to B5, were also taken into consideration. It is true that certain statements of the witnesses do not fully support the case of the claimants. However, the evidence on record establishes the involvement of the offending lorry in the accident. It is also observed that the learned Tribunal ought to have properly assessed the evidence while determining the compensation payable to the claimants. 10 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 21. In the result, The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the same afresh by restoring M.V.O.P. No. 110 of 2005 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, considering that the claimant is pursuing long-pending claim. The owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 1, remained ex parte before the Tribunal despite service of notice by this Court. Both parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal. 22. The Registry is directed to transmit the record to the Tribunal forthwith. The learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, may obtain the original record through a special messenger. Both parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 28.07.2026 and submit their arguments to enable the Tribunal to proceed with the matter and assess the compensation payable to the claimant in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, all pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________________ DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Dated 21.07.2026 PBS 11 Dr. VJP, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1627 of 2007 173 THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1627/2007 Dated 21.07.2026 PBS