Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 1785
HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA
M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J
P.Sudheer – Appellant
Versus
Md.Riyaz – Respondent
MACMA/903/2016
Delay in lodging an FIR should not be fatal to a compensation claim if satisfactory reasons are provided, emphasizing the need for a fair assessment of evidence.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Sections 166 and 168 - Appeal against the dismissal of a claim petition for compensation due to alleged negligence in a motor accident - The court emphasized that delay in lodging an FIR should not be a sole ground for dismissing a claim if satisfactory reasons are provided. (Paras 19-21)
(B) Compensation - The court awarded a total of Rs.1,75,420/- for injuries sustained, including medical expenses and pain and suffering, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. (Paras 22-25)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sustained grievous injuries in a road accident involving an auto, leading to a claim for Rs.3,00,000/- against the owner and insurer. (Paras 3-5)
Findings of Court:
The court found the petitioner entitled to compensation despite the delay in lodging the FIR, recognizing the grievous nature of the injuries and the circumstances surrounding the delay. (Paras 21-25)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Tribunal's dismissal of the claim was justified and if the petitioner was entitled to compensation. (Paras 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal if satisfactory reasons are provided, and the evidence supported the claim of negligence. (Paras 19-21)
Result: Appeal partly allowed, compensation awarded of Rs.1,75,420/- with interest at 7.5%. (Para 25)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and injuries (Para 3) |
| 2. police investigation and charge sheet (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. arguments by appellant's counsel (Para 12) |
| 4. arguments by insurance counsel (Para 13 , 14) |
| 5. evidence review and findings (Para 15) |
| 6. delay in fir not fatal (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT:
1. Aggrieved by the Award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Warangal, in M.V.O.P.No.353 of 2003, dated 02.06.2008, the claim petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2002 at about 6.30 p.m., when the petitioner along with one S.Srinivas were returning on Scooter bearing registration No.AP-36B-9647 and when they reached near Madikonda Cross Road, Warangal District, an Auto bearing Registration No.AP-09-W-5062 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the Scooter of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner along with pillion rider-Srinivas sustained grievous and simple injuries all over the body and immediately after the accident, they were shifted to Jaya Hospital, Hanamkonda for treatment.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Madikonda Police Station registered a case in Crime No.164 of 2022, conducted detailed investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-09-W-5062.
5. It is stated by the petitioner that he sustained fracture injury to his right leg and multiple injuries all over the body. Due to the said injuries, the petitioner is suffering from pains, shock and mental agony and lost his studies and spent heavy expenditure for his treatment. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents who are owner and insurer of crime Auto bearing No.AP-09W-5062.
6. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 remained ex-parte.
7. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, narration of accident, rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of Auto, injuries sustained by the petitioner and medical expenses incurred by him and further contended that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against.
8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-
i. Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of vehicle?
ii. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries, disability and is entitled to claim compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii. To what relief?
9. Before the Tribunal, in order to substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, got examined the Doctor who treated him as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 on his behalf. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.3/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of Insurance Policy was marked with consent.
10. Based on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal came to a conclusion that there is no nexus between the accident and the offending vehicle and the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the offending Auto as he had not lodged any report with the Police and therefore dismissed the claim petition due to lack of bonafides. Aggrieved with the said finding, the petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal.
11. Heard arguments submitted by Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant who appeared through virtual mode and Sri V.Venkat Rami Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent/Insurance Company. Perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.
12. The main contention of the learned Counsel f
