The court determined that the incident was not caused by negligent driving, denying compensation due to the claimant's self-negligence and procedural faults.

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for the appellant/Insurance company and K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. Perused the entire record.

2. Aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, at Mahabubnagar (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.52 of 2019, dated 12.09.2023, the appellant/respondent No.3 challenged the finding of the Tribunal on the ground of false implication of the lorry, failure on the part of the respondent No.1/claimant to prove the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252 and delay in lodging the complaint.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.01.2018, the accident occurred when the claimant went to do cooli work at his field. On that day, the claimant dragged electric wire between electric poles which is located between the agricultural lands of Kodiganti Chandraiah and Edigi Laxmaiah and in between the poles, there is a road. The petitioner was on pole at 4 pm and one lorry bearing No.AP-16-T-0252 driven by its driver with high speed in rash and negligent manner came from Theegalapally and dragged the electric wire whereby the electric wire touched to 11 KV wire, current passed through the wire causing electrocution of the claimant. Due to electrocution, the claimant fell down on a stone bar from the electric pole and sustained bleeding injuries to his right leg and jaw. Immediately, the wife of the claimant and claimant’s brother took him to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar for treatment and then to NIMS, Hyderabad for better treatment. Though the accident occurred on 24.01.2018, the complaint was lodged on 19.03.2018 i.e. after more than 50 days of occurrence of the accident. The reference is made to the evidence led by the claimant about first being admitted in SVS Hospital on 24.01.2018 and then discharged on 25.01.2018 and again, he was admitted in NIMS Hospital on 19.02.2018 and was discharged on 26.02.2018, but the complaint was lodged on 19.03.2018.

4. The claimant emphasized that there were gaps between time periods of hospitalization of the claimant and when he was finally discharged on 26.02.2018, there is no reason for delay in lodging the complaint on 19.03.2018. According to the appellant, this gap shows that there is collusion between the claimant and the owner/respondent. Further, it is emphasized that there was no vehicle involved in the accident and the sequence of events which led to the accident cannot be construed as a road traffic accident. The offending lorry merely dragged an electric wire which was negligently laid on the road and due to the movement of lorry, the electric wire touched 11 KV wire and thereby, the claimant got electrocuted and fell down. The claimant questioned the spreading of electric wires on the ground while carrying on repairing work without any signal and therefore, denied liability to pay compensation, more particularly, as there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

5. A perusal of the record shows that the incident occurred when a person by name Kodiganti Chandraiah engaged the claimant to draw electric wires to his agricultural field. In that process, the claimant has drawn the wire from electric pole and it was laid on the road. When the lorry was passing through said road and was driven on the wires, said wires got dragged and touched the 11 KV wire and thereby, the claimant got electrocuted and fell down from the electric pole. In this regard, the cross examination of the claimant as PW1 is crucial. Said crucial evidence is extracted and produced below:

“ It is not a road accident. One Kodiganti Chandraiah engaged me