Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 411
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.
Syed Murtuza Ahmed - Appellant
Vs.
Abdul Habeeb Jhony And Another - Respondent
M.A.C.M.A. No.774 of 2021
Decided On : 24-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY
In motor accident claims, the claimant must prove their case on the preponderance of probabilities; failure to do so results in dismissal of the claim.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - The appeal arises from the dismissal of a claim for compensation due to alleged negligence in a motor accident. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to establish the occurrence of the accident and the petitioner's claims. (Paras 6, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Burden of Proof - In motor accident claims, the claimant must establish their case on the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized that the petitioner failed to meet this burden. (Paras 13, 14)
(C) Delay in Filing - The Tribunal noted a significant delay in lodging the complaint, which raised doubts about the credibility of the petitioner's claims. (Paras 10, 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed to have sustained injuries from an accident involving a seven-seater auto while waiting for a bus. The respondent denied the occurrence of the accident and raised issues regarding the delay in filing the complaint.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding that the petitioner failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and was therefore not entitled to compensation.
Issues: The main issues included whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver and whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner did not establish the occurrence of the accident, and the delay in filing the complaint undermined his credibility.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.)
This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.3113 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 19.08.2013 at about 11:30 a.m., the petitioner was waiting at Kadthal Bus stop to board RTC bus to go to Hyderabad and that in the mean time, the driver of seven seater auto bearing No.AP-22- TA-2131 came from Amangal side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Oxygen Hospital, Alwal for treatment. It is his case that he was an Employee in RTC, earning Rs.30,000/- per month as salary. He sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 denied the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and contended that the seven seater auto is falsely implicated in the alleged accident. It is further contended that there is a delay of 13 months from the date of accident in lodging the complaint and that the driver of the seven seater auto bearing No.AP-22-TA-2131 was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial:
1) Whether the injuries sustained by Syed Murtuza Ahmed S/o Sayed Abdul Rahman in motor accident occurred on 19.08.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver o the crime vehicle seven seater auto bearing No.AP-22-TA-2131?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
3) To what relief?
7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondent No.2 no evidence was adduced.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, dated 21.09.2021 the present appeal is filed.
9. Heard the submission of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously held that no such accident occurred with the vehicle of respondent No.1 and that the Police failed to register FIR immediately and that the appellant who was the injured was under acute pain and suffering and was undergoing treatment in the hospital and that he was unaware that the Police have not registered a case. He submitted that after getting recovered, the injured approached the Police and then gained knowledge that the compliant was not registered. Thereafter, he approached the Court through a private complaint and the Police have investigated and filed charge sheet against the driver of the seven seater auto. His contention is that the failure of Police in not registering the complaint cannot be put against the petitioner and that the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the accident and thus, prayed this Court to set aside the orders of the Tribunal. He further prayed to consider the income of the injured as per the Salary Certificate filed by him and award just compensation with regard to the injuries and the disability sustained by him.
11. The learned respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition as there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. His contention is that the injured is an Employee and is well aware that a complain
