Telangana High Court
Smt.P.Saraswathi And 2 Others vs Samreddy Ram Reddy And 2 Others on 18 August, 2025
*THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
+ MACMA.NO.114 OF 2022
% 18--08--2025
# 1.Smt.P.Saraswathi and others
... Appellants
vs.
$ 1. Samreddy Ram Reddy and others.
... Respondents
!Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.B.Venkat Reddy
^Counsel for Respondent No.2: Mr.Harinath Reddy Soma
<Gist :
>Head Note :
? Cases referred:
(2022) 10 SCC 512
2025 ACJ 867
1983 ACJ 110
2008 (3) ALD 80 (DB)
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2018) 18 SCC 130
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683
2/24
BRMR, J
MACMA.No.114 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
HYDERABAD
****
MACMA.NO.114 OF 2022
Between:
1.Smt.P.Saraswathi and others
... Appellants
And
1.Samreddy Ram Reddy and others.
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 18.08.2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
_____________________________
B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO,J
3/24
BRMR, J
MACMA.No.114 of 2022
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO
MACMA.No.114 of 2022
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is filed by the claim petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which arises out of an award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') in MVOP.No. 203 of 2015 dated 05.11.2021. 2.1. Appellants - petitioners have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 (M.V.Act) and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1989 read with Section 163-B of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 to 3 on account of the death of P.Lokesh in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 02.12.2014. 2.2. Appellant No.1-petitioner No.1 is the wife, appellant Nos.2 and 3-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the son and daughter of Late P.Lokesh.
3. On 02.12.2014 at about 09.00 hours, P.Lokesh was proceeding on scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362 from Hayatnagar to Torrur, when he reached near Balreddy Poultry farms at that time one Hero Honda Passion motor Cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU- 2000 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and 4/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 dashed him, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained head injury, multiple injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, while undergoing treatment he succumbed to injuries on 03.12.2014. The deceased was working as granite stone cutter and earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was aged about 36 years as on the date of the accident. Due to the death of the deceased, the appellants have suffered mental agony and lost his love and affection. On the complaint, Police Station Hayatnagar registered a case in Crime No.968 of 2014 under Section 304A of IPC against the driver of the Hero Honda Passion motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000.
4.1 Respondent No.1 - owner of the crime vehicle filed counter, denied the accident and further contended that his vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the driver possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence he is not liable to pay the compensation.
4.2 Respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and the rider of the crime vehicle and petition is not maintainable for non- joinder of necessary parties i.e, owner and insurer of scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362. It further contended that the driver of 5/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. In the FIR offending motor vehicle number was not mentioned, which stated as unknown vehicle driven by one Raghavender Reddy, who caused the accident. In the charge sheet and in the claim petition, the offending driver name is mentioned as K.Jaganmohan Reddy and claim made by the appellants- petitioners is excessive and exorbitant.
4.3 Respondent No.3-driver filed counter and denied the averments of the claim petition. Criminal case is pending against him at Hayatnagar Police Station, he did not drive the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and there is no necessity to implead him as a party to the case, he is not liable to pay any compensation.
5. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the deceased P.Lokesh died on 03.12.2014 in a road accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of Crime Vehicle Hero Honda Passion motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU- 2000?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, how much and from whom?
3) To what relief?
6.1 Appellant No.1 was examined as PW1, got examined PW2- S.Suresh, PW3-P.Krishna, PW4-P.Venkatesh and PW5- K.Venkatesh and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Legal manager of 6/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 respondent No.2 was examined as RW1 and got marked Exs.B1- Insurance Policy.
6.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not chose to lead evidence.
7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the parties and perusing the documents, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants-petitioners holding that they failed to prove the accident.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants- petitioners submits that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the evidence of PW2 and PW5, who are the eye-witness to the accident, in the charge sheet their names were not mentioned and the testimony of the witnesses is not rebutted and the driver who was impleaded as respondent No.3 in the O.P has not chosen to enter into the witness box to contradict the evidence of PW2 and PW5. Mere non- mentioning the names of PW2 and PW5 in the charge sheet as eye witnesses cannot be a ground to disbelieve their evidence. In Exs.A4, A5 and A6 crime vehicle number and driver name is mentioned. The Tribunal failed to consider that due to the accident, the deceased died and relied on the decisions in the case of Janabai Vs. M/s. I.C.I.C.I Lambord Insurance Company Ltd., 1
(ii) Kuncham Lavanya and Ors Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance 1 (2022) 10 SCC 512 7/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 Co.Ltd. & Anr. 2 (iii) Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Harbans Kaur and Others 3 and (iv) Repaka Rajya Laxmi and Others Vs. Poldasari Komuraiah and Others 4
9. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 3 were served in the appeal but they failed to appear.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the appellants failed to prove that the deceased P.Lokesh died in road accident on 03.12.2014 due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellants and no interference is called for.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record.
12. Now the point for consideration is: whether the appellants have made out any case to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.203 of 2015, dated 05.11.2021?
13. Appellants-petitioners have originally filed OP against respondent Nos.1 and 2 only and thereafter they have impleaded respondent No.3 as per the orders of the Tribunal in IA No.658/2016 dated 04.10.2016.
22025 ACJ 867 3 1983 ACJ 110 4 2008 (3) ALD 80 (DB) 8/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022
14. The Tribunal recorded the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the evidence of RW1 and posted the matter for arguments on 28.02.2020. The Tribunal after going through the record found that issues were not framed, heard the counsels on record and framed the issues and adjourned the case to 04.03.2020 for leading additional evidence if any and for arguments. Thereafter the appellants-petitioners have examined PW4 and PW5 and orders came to be passed thereon dismissing the OP on 05.11.2021.
15. The reasons given by the Tribunal for dismissing the OP are at para Nos.15, 18 and 20, which reads as under:
"Para No.15...... On bare perusal of Ex.A1 FIR/complaint and Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama it is evident that there is no description of the offending motorcycle is found and the name of Respondent No.3 is also not mentioned but the name of one Raghavender Reddy is mentioned. The respondent No.2 contends that one unknown motorcycle driven by Raghavender Reddy hit the deceased not the offending motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000. That the motorcycle driven by Raghavender Reddy had no Insurance coverage and he was not possessing driving licence, therefore the Respondent no.3 and the offending motorcycle AP-29-BU-2000 are falsely implicated to get insurance claim for the petitioners with the help of the Police. This contention draws corroboration from the admissions of the witnesses and also the Ex.A1 FIR /complaint and Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama, in those documents there is mention of the name of one Raghavender Reddy but not the name of Respondent no.3 i.e., K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, as driver of the offending motorcycle. The cross examination evidence of all the witnesses and the Ex.A1 FIR /complaint and Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama are also supporting the contention of the respondent No2. The Ex.A1 9/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 FIR/complaint and Ex.A2 Inquest panchanama are filed before magistrate on 4-12-2014 whereas the other documents Ex.A3 PME is no report, Ex.A4 scene of offence panchanma are filed along with Ex.A6 charge sheet later on before the concerned Magistrate. Therefore they are containing the name of respondent no.3 in those documents. There is no evidence produced by the petitioners to support their contention that how the name of respondent no.3 was mentioned in the subsequent documents i.e., Scene of offence (Ex.A4), MVI report (Ex.A5) charge sheet (Ex.A6). Para No.18.... It is also a fact to be noted that the owner of the offending motor cycle is contesting the case as respondent No.1 but he was not examined by the petitioner to prove their case. The non examination of Respondent No.1 is also fatal to the case of petitioners.
Para No.20. In the evidence affidavit of PW4 and PW5, it is mentioned that the accused driver wrongly informed his name as Raghavender Reddy instead of K. Jaganmohan Reddy R/o Koheda. The petitioners did not examine the investigation officer of the criminal case to explain and prove in what circumstances the motorcycle rider's name is changed from Raghavender Reddy to K. Jaganmohan Reddy in the charge sheet and other documents. The fact of changing the name of driver of Motor cycle is averred in the chief affidavits of PW4 and PW5. In the evidence which is produced by petitioners after hearing the arguments, the petitioners changed and these facts are revealed by the petitioners by producing additional evidence of PW4 and 5 and on reopening the petitioners evidence by filling the gaps. As per record, the cross examination of PWS 1, 2, 4 and 5, the FIR Ex.Al and Ex.A2 - inquest panchanama are supporting the contention of the respondent no.2, that the name of respondent no.3 and the offending motorcycle AP-29-BU-2000 were got implicated in Ex.A5 MVI report, Ex.A6 charge sheet to get compensation to the petitioners from the respondent no.2. Therefore the petitioners failed to prove that the offending motorcycle AP29 BU 2000 and its rider is respondent No.3 K. Jaganmohan Reddy but not Raghavender Reddy. Therefore, the Tribunal holds that the pleaded 10/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 accident is not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Hero Honda Passion motor cycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000."
16. In case the accident is disputed or the involvement of the vehicle concerned is put in issue, the claimant is only expected to prove the same on a preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. [See Sajeena Ikhbal and Others, V. Mini Babu George and Others, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2883].
17.1 In Bimla Devi & Ors. V. Himachal Road Transport Corporation & Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 530. Repelling similar contentions raised challenging the accident and the involvement of the vehicle in question. Supreme Court held as follows:
"14. Some discrepancies in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses might have occurred but the core question before the Tribunal and consequently before the High Court was as to whether the bus in question was involved in the accident or not. For the purpose of determining the said issue, the Court was required to apply the principle underlying the burden of proof in terms of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to whether a dead body wrapped in a blanket had been found at the spot at such an early hour, which was required to be proved by Respondents 2 and 3.
15. In a situation of this nature, the Tribunal has rightly taken a holistic view of the matter. It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict prior of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants were merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond 11/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 reasonable doubt could not have been applied. For the said purpose, the High Court should have taken into consideration the respective stories set forth by both the parties.
16. The judgment of the High Court to a great extent is based on conjectures and surmises. While holding that the police might have implicated the respondents, no reason has been assigned in support thereof. No material brought on record has been referred to for the said purpose."
17.2 The ratio laid down in Bimla Devi's case supra is reiterated in Geeta Dubey and Others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others 5.
18. Applying the test of preponderance of probability now I have to see whether the appellants-petitioners have established their case that it was Hero Honda Passsion motor cycle bearing Registration No. AP-29-BU-2000 which was involved in the accident with scooter bearing No. AP-28-D-9362.
19. The complaint is lodged by Peramdorai Venkatesh (PW4) on 03.12.2014 before the police Hayatnagar and the same is reproduced in column No.12 of the FIR (Ex.A1):
"The brief facts of the case are that on 02.12.2014 at about 0900 hours the complainants brother Peramdorai Loknath, aged - 39 years, Occu-Labour, Caste-Waddera, R/o Thorrur village, Hayathnagar while proceeding towards Hayathnagar from Thorrur village on his Scooter Br No. AP 28 D 9362 mean time on reaching near Balreddy Poultry Farm, between Thorrur to Hayathnagar the rider of two wheeler i.e. Raghavendar Reddy R/o Koheda village, 5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3779 12/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 Hayathnagar rode his bike (bike No. not known) in a rash and negligent manner who came from back side and dashed to complainants brother, resulting which he fell down and sustained bleeding injuries to head and went in to unconscious, immediately shifted Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment and while undergoing treatment he was succumbed to injuries on 03-12- 2014 at about 1355 hours, hence he requested for taking necessary action. (Complaint enclosed)"
20. Ex.A1 is the FIR No.968/2014 dated 03.12.2014 of PS Hayatnagar, wherein the name of the accused is shown as Raghavendar Reddy, rider of the bike. Crime is registered for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A4 is the certified copy of scene of offence panchanama with rough sketch dated 03.12.2014 in Crime No.968/2014 which states that Jaganmohan Reddy drew Passion Pro Br.No.AP-29-BU-2000 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed P.Lokesh. Ex.A2 is the certified copy of inquest report dated 04.12.2014 which shows the name of Raghavendar Reddy R/o Koheda. Ex.A5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report of passion pro vehicle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000 (M/C), wherein the name and address of the owner is shown as B.Ram Reddy S/o Dan Reddy (Respondent No.1 herein), name and address of the driver is shown as K.Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o. K.Madhusudan Reddy, R/o. H.No.5-76, Koheda, Hayatnagar (Respondent No.3 herein), the driving licence is valid upto 31.07.2033 and opinion is that the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the 13/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 vehicle vide report dated 16.12.2014. Ex.A6 is the charge sheet filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. by police station Hayatnagar in Cr.No.968/2014 for the offence under section 304-A of IPC against Kallem Jaganmohan Reddy (Respondent No.3 herein).
21. The investigation revealed that K.Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o K.Madhusudan Reddy age 19 years drove his Passion Pro bike Br.No.AP-29-BU-2000 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from backside, as a result he succumbed to injuries on 03.12.2014 at 13:55 hours in Osmania General Hospital and that he is responsible for the accident, liable for punishment under Section 304-A of IPC.
22.1 PW1 is the wife of the deceased P.Lokesh, she deposed that her husband died in a motor accident which took place on 02.12.2014 at 09.00 hours between Torruru village to Hayatnagar road near Balreddy poultry form within PS limits of Hayatnagar, Rangareddy District and her husband was proceeding on his scooter No.AP-28-D-9362 and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Hero Honda passion pro bearing No.AP-29- BU-2000, which was driven by respondent No.3 and on the complaint given by PW4 Ex.A1-FIR came to be registered. 22.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have cross-examined PW1, she stated that the accused driver name is Kallam Jagan Mohan Reddy 14/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 (R3). She denied the suggestion that accident has occurred due to the negligence of her husband. Insurance company has also cross- examined the witness and she stated that her husband died on 03.12.2014 and the inquest was on 04.12.2014 and she was present there at. It is mentioned in the inquest report that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Raghavandher Reddy by unknown vehicle. Witness further stated that as per the panchanama dated 03.12.2014 (Ex.A4) it is mentioned that Jaganmohan Reddy rider of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000 was involved in the accident. She denied the suggestion that crime vehicle is implicated in the case to claim compensation and that she has not filed the driving licence of the deceased.
23.1 PW2 is an eye witness to the incident, he deposed that on 02.12.2014 accident has taken place near Balreddy Poultry Form when P.Lokesh was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP-28-D- 9362 from Torrur village towards Hayatnagar, on approaching the Balreddy Poultry Farm one Hero Honda passion motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000 was driven in high speed in a negligent manner went wrong side of the road and dashed the scooter of P.Lokesh from behind due to which Lokesh sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and that 15/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle.
23.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have cross-examined the witness and he stated that he was sitting in the front of his shop, one motor vehicle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000 was driven by Kallem Jagan Mohan Reddy came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and went wrong side of the road and dashed the scooter of the deceased from behind, due to that accident the rider of the scooter P.Lokesh sustained head injury and became unconscious and was shifted to Osmania Gandhi Hospital, he died on 03.12.2014. PW2 denied the suggestion that he has not witnessed the accident.
23.3 PW2 is also cross-examined by the insurance company and stated that his name is not mentioned as an eye-witness in the charge sheet and he do not know the contents of the FIR and as per the FIR accident took place on 02.12.2014, a complaint is lodged on 03.12.2014. PW2 denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to the involvement of an unknown vehicle driven by one Raghavendar Reddy but not due to the involvement of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000 driven K.Jagan Mohan Reddy.
16/24
BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 24.1 PW4 is the complainant in the criminal case. He deposed that P.Lokesh is his brother. On 02.12.2014 at about 09.00 a.m. while P.Lokesh was going on his scooter from Torrur towards Hayatnagar side on approaching near Balreddy Poultry Form on motorcycle i.e. passion pro bike bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000 driven by its driver in high speed in a rash and negligent manner went on wrong side of the road and dashed the scooter of P.Lokesh from behind as a result P.Lokesh sustained head injury and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, while undergoing treatment he died on 03.12.2014 at 2.30 p.m. On his complaint Ex.A1-FIR is registered and that the accused driver wrongly informed the name as Raghavender Reddy, on investigation he disclosed his correct name as K.Jagan Mohan Reddy R/o Koheda(V), Hayatnagar (M), Ranga Reddy District.
24.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 3 failed to cross-examine the witness. 24.3 Insurance company cross-examined PW4 and he stated that in the complaint one unknown rider of two wheeler driven by one Raghavendher Reddy, R/o. Koheda (V), caused the accident on 02.12.2014, he was present at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 04.12.2014 and his name was mentioned as LW1, it is also mentioned in the inquest report that accident occurred due to the involvement of one unknown motorcycle driven 17/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 by one K.Raghavendher Reddy and he is not aware when and how the police traced out the accused name as K.Jaganmohan Reddy. PW4 denied the suggestion that though the accident occurred due to hit and run by unknown vehicle driven by Raghavendhar Reddy, in collusion with owner they have implicated bike No.AP-29-BU- 2000 by showing the name of K.Jagan Mohan Reddy as an accused.
25.1 PW5 is another eye witness, his evidence is similar to that of the evidence of PW2 in respect of the accident and he further deposed that the Lokesh sustained head injury and was shifted in his auto bearing No.AP-24-Y-0113 to Osmania General Hospital and he also informed the family members of Lokesh. The rider of the motorcycle wrongly informed his name as Raghavendhar Reddy instead of K.Jagan Mohan Reddy.
25.2 Respondent Nos.1 and 3 have not cross-examined the witness.
25.3 Insurance company has cross-examined the witness and he stated that he has not lodged any complaint before the police and he do not know whether his name is mentioned as a witness in the charge sheet, so also he is not aware that in the police records the rider name was mentioned as Raghavendhar Reddy. PW5 denied 18/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 the suggestion that he is giving false evidence to support the petitioners.
26.1 RW1 is the Legal Manager in respondent No.2 - Insurance Company, he deposed that policy is issued in respect of Hero Honda Passion M/c No.AP-29-BU-2000 which is valid from 21.04.2014 to 20.04.2015 belongs to respondent No.1 and as per the FIR (Ex.A1) one Raghavendar Reddy is shown as rider of unknown vehicle at the time of alleged accident, who was not having a valid driving licence and to fix the liability against respondent No.2-company in collusion with owner and driver they have implicated one K.Janardhan Reddy S/o Madhusudan Reddy as the rider. Spot Panchanama conducted on 03.12.2014 and inquest on 04.12.2014 clearly establishes that the alleged accident occurred due to the involvement of unknown vehicle driven by M.Raghavender Reddy, who was not having a valid driving licence. Basing on the charge sheet petitioners are claiming compensation. Accident occurred due to involvement of unknown vehicle which was driven by the person without having driving licence and without conducting proper investigation and examining any eye- witness police filed charge sheet.
26.2 In his cross-examination he admitted that as per charge sheet-Ex.A6 and MVI report - Ex.A5 one Kallem Jagan Mohan 19/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 Reddy (Respondent No.3 herein) was shown as driver of the crime vehicle. Witness adds that as per FIR one Raghavender Reddy is shown as the driver of the crime vehicle. As per Ex.A5 K.Jagan Mohan Reddy (R3) is having valid driving licence and he did not file any documentary evidence to show that M.Raghavender Reddy is in existence and he has also not filed any report of the investigator in the Court, he will make efforts to examine M.Raghavendhar Reddy. RW1 denied the suggestion that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and he possess valid driving licence and that insurance company is liable to pay the same.
27. It is the case of the respondent No.2 that crime vehicle is wrongly involved to claim the insurance. In the evidence of RW1 he has given the name of K.Janardhan Reddy S/o.Madhusudhan Reddy, the said name is neither in Ex.A1 nor he is party in the MVOP. Except a bear assertion that the vehicle has been wrongly involved, the insurance company which has set up a plea of collusion has done nothing to make good its case. It is worth mentioning that insurance company did not lodge any complaint of collusion about the involvement of crime vehicle. Burden is on the insurance company to prove that there was a collusion between the appellant with that of R1 and R3, which burden is not discharged by them. If the insurance company had suspected collusion they 20/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 would have taken steps to file an appropriate complaint including moving the higher police authorities or the Court to order an investigation into the alleged wrongful involvement of the vehicle.
28. In Janabai's case1 Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.11 which reads as under:
"Paragraph No.11. the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which is summary in nature. There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statement of appellant No.1 who suffered injuries in the accident. The application under the Act has to be decided on the basis of evidence led before it and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could have been led in a criminal trial. We find that the entire approach of the High Court is clearly not sustainable.
29. In Kuncham Lavanya's case2 Supreme Court observed at paragraph No.17 which reads as under:
Paragraph No.17. The very fact that the case was registered against an unknown vehicle initially would indicate that the offending vehicle was not identified. However, since an F.I.R. is not expected to be encyclopedic [See Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175, para 20] and is only for the purpose of putting into motion criminal law such that thorough and full-fledged investigation by the police ensues, it is the duty of the investigating agency to find out the identity of the culprit /which in the present case would be the offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law. Thus, the mere fact that initially the F.I.R. records the vehicle as unknown would not be fatal for the prosecution/claimants to later come up with the specific identity of the vehicle/driver, with the obvious caveat that the connection of the 21/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 accident with the said vehicle has to be based on cogent and reliable evidence."
30. Though PW2 and PW5 are not shown as witness in the charge sheet (Ex.A6), their evidence could not be discarded see Delhi Transport Corporation's case3 and Repaka Rajya Laxmi's case4 . In view of the decision supra the evidence of PW2 and PW5 cannot be discarded and they speak the manner in which the accident has occurred. It is worth mentioning that PW4 and PW5 were not cross-examined by R1 - owner of the crime vehicle and R3
- driver of the crime vehicle. Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.3 have filed counter in the OP filed by the appellants but they did not enter into the witness box to substantiate their contention. Owner and insurer of scooter bearing No.AP-28-D-9362 are not necessary parties in view of the fact that owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are made as parties i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 3.
31. Applying the test of preponderance of probabilities, I find that the petitioners have established their case by examining PW2 and PW5 and that the accident took place on the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by respondent No.3 and I feel that there is no reason for the police to falsely implicate the vehicle concerned in the matter and launch prosecution against the driver. The observations of the Tribunal stated supra at paragraph No.15 are perverse and has not properly appreciated the evidence on 22/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 record, further more placed burden on the appellants that they have not examined respondent No.1 to prove the accident, investigating officer is also not examined to explain and prove in what circumstances rider name is changed from Raghavender Reddy to K.Jagan Mohan Reddy, which findings are liable to be set aside.
32. This Court felt that whether the matter should be remanded for fresh consideration by the Tribunal. Since the accident occurred on 02.12.2014 as already 9 years has elapsed, further delay will only compound the agony of the family hence proceeded to answer issue No.2 framed by the Tribunal with regard to entitlement of compensation by the appellants-petitioners.
33. The Tribunal has not answered issue No.2 in view of the fact that the issue No.1 was against the appellants-petitioners as they failed to prove rash and negligent driving of the rider of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-29-BU-2000.
34. The evidence of PW1 is that her husband Lokesh was aged about 36 years and was working as granite stone cutting worker, earning Rs.12,000/- per month and was contributing the entire earnings to the family and she lost her husband, appellant Nos.2 and 3 have lost their father and in total claimed an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation.
23/24
BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 35.1 PW3 is the employer of the deceased Lokesh, he deposed that he is doing stone cutting and flooring business and deceased was working under him as a daily wage labourer and used to pay Rs.500/- per day excluding on Sunday on an average he used to pay Rs.12,000/- per month.
35.2 In his cross-examination by respondent Nos.1 and 3 counsel, he stated that the deceased was working under him for the past 5 years and he is not maintaining any records for payment of wages. 35.3 In his cross-examination by the Insurance company and he stated that he has not filed any document to show that the deceased was employed as a labour and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.
36. The evidence of PW1 and PW3 goes to show that the deceased Lokesh is a granite stone cutter and flooring worker, used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month. Ministry of Labour and Employment Notification No.1047 dated 31.10.2010 vide The Gazette of India has fixed Rs.8,000/- as monthly wages. The above said wages (Rs.8,000) can safely be taken as the income of the deceased.
37. Age of the deceased is shown as 36 years in the claim petition, the same age is shown in Ex.A2 - inquest report, Ex.A3 - 24/24
BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022 post-mortem examination report hence this Court is of the view that the deceased falls in the age group of 36-40 years and appropriate multiplier is '15'; number of dependents are three deductions towards personal expenses of the deceased would be 1/3rd as per Salar Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 6. Future prospects can be added at the rate of 40% as the deceased is in the age group of below 40 years as per National Insurance Company Vs. Pranay Sethi 7. Petitioners are also entitled for consortium, loss of estate and funeral expenses as per the decision in Magma General Insurance Company Vs. Nanu Ram Alias Chuhru Ram and others 8.
38. The computation is under:
Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount
awarded
1. Income Rs.8,000/-
2. Add 40% future prospects Rs.11,200/-
(40% of 8,000) +
8,000
3. Deduct 1/3rd towards personal Rs.7,467/-
[11,200-3733]
expenses ((1/3 x 11,200) =
3,733.333 taken as
Rs.3,733/-)
4. Annual income Rs.89,604/-
(7,467 x 12)
5. Multiplier '15' Rs.13,44,060/-
(89,604 x 15)
6. Consortium Rs.1,20,000/-
6
(2009) 6 SCC 121
7
(2017) 16 SCC 680
8
(2018) 18 SCC 130
25/24
BRMR, J
MACMA.No.114 of 2022
(Rs.40,000/- each) (40,000 x 3)
7. Loss of estate Rs.15,000/-
8. Funeral expenses Rs.15,000/-
Total Rs.14,94,060/-
Rounded off to
Rs.14,94,000/-
39. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and others 9.
40. In the result, MACMA.No.114 of 2022 is allowed in part as under:
a) The impugned award dated 05.11.2021, passed in MVOP.No. 203 of 2015, is set aside.
b) The appellants are awarded compensation of Rs.14,94,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.
c) Appellant No.1 - petitioner No.1 is entitled to Rs.5,97,600/- and she is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.
9 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683 26/24 BRMR, J MACMA.No.114 of 2022
d) Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 - petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are entitled to Rs.4,48,200/- each and they permitted to withdraw their entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.
e) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.
______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 18.08.2025 Dua