IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.278 of 2019 DATE: 01.12.2025 Between:

Md. Ismail and four others …..Appellants AND G.Vijayanath and another.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), is filed by the appellants-claimants, challenging the order and decree dated 29.06.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1260 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the said O.P.

2. The case of the appellants is that on 18.12.2011, the deceased- Abidabee along with her cousin-Md.Ismail, were travelling on hero honda motorcycle bearing No.AP 23 P 0717 and when the vehicle reached near Mahindra Dhaba at Huggelly Village, the motorcycle turned turtle and both fell down, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and, after undergoing treatment for about forty-three days, died on 29.01.2012. Stating that the deceased was working as an agricultural coolie and earning Rs.90,000/- per annum, the appellants herein, who are the husband and children of the deceased filed M.V.O.P.No.1260 of 2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization of the entire amount.

3. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The 2^nd respondent–Insurance Company opposed the claim and pleaded that the accident was not caused on account of negligence of the motorcycle rider. It was specifically contended that the rider of the motorcycle, clearly admitted that an unknown Bolero vehicle came in a rash manner from the opposite direction, forcing him to swerve the motorcycle to the extreme left, due to which it skidded. On that basis, the Insurance Company contended that the accident falls within the definition of a hit and run accident under Section 161 of the Act that no negligence can be attributed to the insured vehicle, and that the appellants have to approach the Claims Enquiry Officer under the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The Insurance Company also questioned the delay of forty-three days in lodging the complaint and the absence of medical evidence connecting the injuries to the death.

4. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2, Exs.A1 to A6 and the testimony of RW1, held that no negligence could be attributed to the rider of the motorcycle. PW2-the brother of the deceased, who was riding the motorcycle, admitted in clear terms that the accident occurred only because of the sudden appearance of an unknown Bolero vehicle and that there was no negligence on his part. Based on that admission, the Tribunal held that the accident was caused by an unidentified vehicle, and that the appellants ought to have pursued their remedy only under the Solatium Scheme, 1989. The Tribunal further noted the unexplained delay in filing the complaint and the absence of evidence establishing the nexus between the injuries and the subsequent death.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record. Despite listing this matter under the caption “For Orders”, there is no representation for the respondents. This appeal is of the year 2019. Hence, this appeal is disposed of on merits, basing on the material available on record, without waiting for the respondents to advance arguments.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal misread the evidence, failed to appreciate the medical record, and ought to have accepted the version of PW1 that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of PW2. It is further contended that the deceased died while undergoing treatment, and therefore the Tribunal ought to have accepted the causal link and awarded compensation.

7. On the other