APHC010081902008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3396] THURSDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 818/2008 Between: K.B. SURESH, S/O. K. BALA KRISHNAMA CHARI DEPENDENT RESIDING AT VEMAPURAM VILLAGE, VADAMALAPET MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...APPELLANT AND 1. T MURALI AND ANOTHER, S/O. SUBRAHMANYAM ACHARY OWNER OF THE HERO HONDA MOTOR CYCLE REGN. NO.AP03M 1015 R/O. D.NO.1-144-56 /A, T.P. AREA, TIRUPATI TOWN, 2. M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER TIRUPATI BRANCH. HAVING DIVISIONAL OFFICE AT NARASIMHA THEERTHAM ROAD, TIRUPATI TOWN. ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Courtto call for the records relating to the MV.OP.No.529 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati, Chittoor District dated 31-12-2007 and allowing the Appeal as well as Claim Petition as prayed for. Counsel for the Appellant: V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): P BHASKAR The Court made the following: 2 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Sri V.Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri P.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 2. The present appeal was preferred by the claimant, aggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.20071 passed in M.V.O.P.No.529 of 20042 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Tirupati3, wherein the claim for compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant was dismissed. 2. On perusal of the impugned order would show that the Tribunal did not choose to assess the compensation, for which the claimant is entitled, instead of that, the claim petition was dismissed only on the point that as per the contents of the claim petition due to rash and negligent riding of the offending motorcycle by one Murali, who was shown as respondent No.1, the accident occurred. But the contents of F.I.R and Charge Sheet would show that at the time of accident, one Rajesh was riding the motorcycle. Needless to say that when a petition filed under Section 166 of Motor 1 hereinafter called as ‘Impugned order’ 2 hereinafter called as ‘Claim petition’ 3 hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’ 3 Vehicles Act seeking compensation, the claimant has to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Herein, the respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending motorcycle. As stated supra, as per the contents of F.I.R., one Rajesh was riding the motorcycle at the relevant point of time. It appears that mistakenly the claimant mentioned in the claim petition that respondent No.1 was the rider of the offending motorcycle. 3. For this simple discrapency, which cannot go into the root of the case, the Tribunal ought not have rejected the claim. The reason being, since the accident was reported before the police and they have registered the crime vide Ex.A.1 and after due investigation a charge sheet was also filed, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and underwent treatment for a considerable period of time. The dismissal of the claim petition, on the point that the Rajesh is not shown as rider of the offending motorcycle and Murali, who is respondent No.1 was shown as the rider at the time of accident is not sustainable under law. Furthermore, respondent No.1 remained exparte and respondent No.2/insurance company did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf disputing the genuineness of the claim. 4 4. Now, it is relevant to refer certain observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent pronouncent in Raj Kumar Das v. National Insurance Company Limtied4, that: “Minor discrapencies in record or delays in filing an F.I.R. do not defeat a claim, as medical treatment for grievous injuries take priority over legal formalities”. 5. In that view, since the petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, which is a beneficial legislation, it is apposite to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 6. Accordingly, the present M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by setting aside the order dated 31.12.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.529 of 2004 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Tirupati. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the Tribunal, petition is restored to its file and directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the counsel representing the claimant as well as insurance company are present before this Court, they are directed to instruct their respective parties to appear before the Tribunal on 10.08.2026 to pursue their matter. Registry is directed 4 2026 INSC 541 5 to return the original bundle to the Tribunal through a special messenger on proper acknowledgement. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed. ________________________________________ Dr.JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Date: 30.07.2026 Krs 6 39 THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA M.A.C.M.A.No.818 of 2008 ( JUDGMENT ) DATE: 30.07.2026 Krs