IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.5285 OF 2008 DATE:09.03.2026 Between: G.Suresh.

...Appellant AND P. Yegonda Swamy and another.

…Respondents

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), against the judgment and decree dated 17.05.2006 made in M.V.O.P No. 2110 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad (hereinafter referred to as, “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed.

2. Heard Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri B.Naresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

3. The Appellant/Claimant approached the learned Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for injuries allegedly sustained by him in a road accident dated 28.08.2002. According to the appellant/claimant while he was travelling in a Maruthi Car bearing registration No.MH- 03-H-616 with another person by name A. Gangadhar and his wife, a Tata Sumo Jeep bearing registration No.AP-25-U- 2525, driven in a rash and negligent manner, come from the opposite direction, dashed against their vehicle. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries and the vehicle was damaged. 4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed its counter denying the petition averments and contended that the claim petition was liable to be dismissed.

5. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence of PW-1 (Claimant) and PW-2 (Dr.T. Narsing Rao) and Exs.A-1 to A-4, dismissed the petition primarily on the ground that there was an un-explained delay of 16 days in lodging the F.I.R., and that the pleadings of the claimant were not in consonance with the injuries noted in the wound certificate (Ex.A-3). Aggrieved thereby, the claimant preferred the present appeal.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. Basing on the facts and circumstances and after going through the record, the reasons given by the learned Tribunal in refusing compensation, cannot be interfered with. The learned Tribunal recorded a categorical finding that there is no plausible explanation for the delay of 16 days in lodging the F.I.R. Further, it was also found that the version of the claimant regarding the injuries sustained by him is inconsistent with the medical evidence on record, particularly Ex.A-3 (wound certificate). These findings, being based on appreciation of evidence, cannot be said to be either perverse or contrary to the material available on record.

7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that, in M.A.C.M.A.No.5126 of 2008, which arose out of the same accident in O.P.No.1567 of 2002, a similar claim was dismissed by this court vide order and decree dated 12.06.2024. The learned Tribunal elaborately discussed the reasons for not awarding compensation in favour of claimant therein.

8. In view of the aforesaid circumstances cited, this Court does not find any valid or justifiable ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Tribunal.

9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________________________ JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Date:09.03.2026 VPT

5016 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.5285 OF 2008 DATE:09.03.2026

VPT