Dismissed

Smt. Vijaya Soni and 2 Others v. Madi Reddy Sudhir and Another

Telangana HC11 Dec 2023MACMA/3309/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the appeal in a motor accident claim filed under Section 113 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the claimants failed to prove the scooter's involvement in the fatal accident due to conflicting witness testimonies and the inquest report.

What did the court decide?

The Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3309 of 2009 is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Smt. Vijaya Soni and 2 Others Vs Madi Reddy Sudhir… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY THE^{ELEVENTH DAYOF DECEMBER} . - TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶6

MOTOR ACCI DENT^{CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL NO: 3309 0F 2009}

¶7

AppealUnderSectionlT3ofMotorVehiclesActagainsttheorderanddecreein o.P.No.21lBof2005dated3l.03.2009onthefileoftheCourtoftheChairman Motor Accident^{claimsTribunal -cum-chief Judge,city civil courts,Hyderabad'} Between:

¶8

Smt. Vijaya^{Soni,W/o Late Ramesh KumarSoni' Occ:House Wife'F/o} U.No.Z-t^{-aS,Tobaco Bazar, Secunderabad'}

¶9

2.AVUShSoni.S/oLateRameshKumarSoni,aged20yearsStudent,minorRyo Hlruo.z-t-+s,^{Tobaco Bazar, Secunderabad'}

¶10

Krishna Soni,^{S/o Late Ramesh Kumar Soni, aged '18 years Student' minor}

¶11

Petitioners 2and3^{are being minorsrep' by their mother PetitionerNo' 1)}

¶12

All R/o H.No.2-1-45,^{Tobaco Bazar, Secunderabad.}

¶13

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶14

AND

¶15

1 tvladi Reddv sudhir, S/o^{Late Sudarshan Rao, age major,occ:BusinessRl/o} Fiiii'i.l.s-SiJtiirtni^{r.rigri, North A.G.colonv, Near E S I Hospital'} Hyderabad.

¶16

2 National lnsurance^{CompanyLimited, Rep' by its-Divilional Manager'.} ijiri;;;i iifli;",^{rv ?root. sira pnalokcoinpl6x, s} If^{Road,Secund-era bad'.} li,ffi;Ity^{i i;:6 ii zosrs\ r oqi di0174e valih trom 22'7 20o4 to 21'o7 2oo5)}

¶17

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶18

: MT. M. MADHAVA^REDDY Counsel for the^APPellants

¶19

Counsel for the ResPondent^No.2

¶20

: MT. A. RAMAKRISHNA^REDDY

¶21

The Court made^{the following:}

¶22

¶23

HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY} AND HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{N. TUKARAMJI}

¶24

A M o 9

¶25

D ME (per Hon'ble Sri lustice^{N. Tukatamii)}

¶26

\X'e have heard^{Mr.M.Madhava Reddy, Iearned counselfor}

¶27

the peritioncrs^{and Mr. A. RamakrishnaReddy' learnedcounsel} for the respondent^{No.2/insurer and perusedthe record'}

¶28

This appcal^{has been filed by the petitioncrsaggdeved by} the dismissal o[^{the claim petitioo vide order dated 31'03'2009in} ().P.No.2118 of 2005 on thc file of^{the Chairman' Motor} AccidentsClaims.I'ribunal-cum_ChiefJudge,CiryCivilCourts. Hyderabad.

¶29

The appellants/claimants^{tried the peridon undcrSection} 166 of the Motor^{Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensarionof} Rs.One Crore^{for the death of one Ramesh I(umar Soni' in a} motor accident.

¶30

Thc appellants'^{case in brief is that on 14'05'2005at about} 10.30 p.m. when^{RameshKumarSoni/deceased was proceedt'*---}

¶31

¶32

PSl(J&NTR,l Macma-3309 2009

¶33

on Kineric Honda, on flyover bridge opposite ro Air_ware College neat Plaza cross road an unknown car hit the scooter, as a result he fell down on rhe road. At thc same dme, the passersby i.c. A.Mahesh/PW-2, S.Hanmanthu/RW_4 and one A. Ballappa while tryrng to help, a scoorer bearing Registration No.Ap10N_6279 (rereinafter 'the scooter) drivcn by its rider in rash and ncgligent manner dashed S.Hanmanthu/Rw-4 and another. In that course, the scooter fell on the deceased and caused blunt injury on his abdomen. The inured were shifted ro Apollo Hospital, Jubrlee Hills, however while undergoing rrearmenr on 02.0(>.2005 the deceased succumbed to injuries. Thus the claim petition.

¶34

The tribunal framed issue, whcther thc death of Ramcsh Kumar Soni/deceased was as a result of accident caused by the scooter and on analyzing the materials on record concluded that the appellants failed to establish that the dearh was due to involvement of the scooter and dismissed the petrrion.

¶35

In appeal, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently pleaded that the tribunal had grossly erred in proper appreciauon -.\

¶36

PSK,.'&NT&J l'4acma-3309-2009

¶37

¶38

of thc matcriais on record particulariy the^{eycuitness/PW-2} account, as to involvement^{o[ the scooter in the accidefltafld} causing the fatal injury to thc^{deceased.He assertedthat afterthe} deceascd knocked down by the^{unknowncat ar.d while PW-2} along with ltW-4 and another^{were helping the deceased,the} scooter came and struck^{Hanmanthu/RW-4 and N{ahesh/P$fl-2} and thc scooter parucularly^{its handle fell on the deceased's} abdomcn and caused the^{fatal iniury. Thereforedisputedthat as} the involvcment o[ thc scooter in the^{accident is clear by the} rccord, ignonng such evtdencc dismissing^{the pendon is patendy} crrone()us. Irurther plcaded that the petidoners^{have piaced the} oral and documentary evidencc proving^{the age, incomeand} dependency o[ the petitioncrs. For^{that reason, consideringthe} on the cycwltness account prayed for fixing the liability respondents and to award the compensation as^{claimed in the} Petltron.

¶39

I Iaving regard to the pieadrngs, the records on frle are carefuliy perused

¶40

¶41

PSK,]&NTR,] Macma 3309 2009

¶42

To provc the accident and involvement o[ the scooter in causing injury to the deceased, the petitioners placed strong rehance oo the testimony of the cyewrtness/PW-2

¶43

The PW-2 in chief affidavrt, in regard to occurrcnce srared that whcn himself along with S.Hanmanrhu /P.W-4 and Ballappa

¶44

while proceeding in auto trolly to home, near Plaza cross road on flyover bridge opposite Air-ware collegc he saw one person fallen on the road.^'l-hen himself and his fricnds stopped rherc ro rescue

¶45

him. At the same time the scooter camc From YMCA side camc in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed Ramcsh I(umar Soni/deceased on hrs abdomen portion and handle of the said scooter hit strongly in the abdomen o[ Ramcsh I(umar Sonr. He also sated that in the accident, his friend Hanmanthu/RVy'-4 also sustained grievous iniuries.

¶46

10.^'lhe de faxo complainant/another victim/RW-4 also stated that at relevant time hc was proceeding along with Mahcsh/PW-2 and Ballappa from Begum bazzar tn his auto trolly and on M.G road flyover, by observing a person lying on the road in a pool of

¶47

PSK,J&NTR,] Macma-3309²⁰⁰⁹

¶48

¶49

blood, stopped^{thcir vehicle and while he was trying to help the} iniured person,^{the scooter came in rash and negligent manner} and dashed them^{due to which himselffell down, suffered ftactufe} o[ clavicle bone^{and other injuries all over his body Even as per} the F.I.R./Ex:A-1^{the scooteristdashed him and caused fracture} injuries. His^{friendand also rhc scooteristfell down and suffered}

¶50

injuries. AII of them^{wereshiftcd to hospital lor treatment'}

¶51

11.^'I'he eyewrtnesses^{accountparticularly the first inFormation} statement of^{RW-4 in trIR/Ex:A-land his evidencebefore the} Court arc evidently^{clear that the scooteriststruck the RW-4and} his friend and fell down.^{Thus, nowhetcit wasmentionedthat} the scooter touched^{the dcceased. In contrast, the P!7-2 in his} chief examinauon^{deposed that thc scootetcame anddirecdy} dashed the deceased^{in his abdomenportionand also fell on the} deceased's abdomen,^{caused seriousinf ury to him' Thusthe} version grven by PW^{2 and RW-4are evidendyin contrast'}

¶52

1.2. Nonetheless the earliest^{statementof R!7-4 in F'I.R./Ex'A-} ...1 is supporting the prescnce o[ I]W-2 and in^{cross cxamination}

¶53

¶54

PSK,J&NTR,] t4acma_3309-2009

¶55

the PW-2 had admitted his knowledge that in the F.i.R./Ex.A_1 it was only mentioned that the scooter dashed the th /axo complainant/RW-4 and his friend. In this position rhe conclusion recorded by the policc in final reporr that the scoorer came ar high speed and hit thc complainant and the rider fell down on rhe road and the scooter fcll on the injured (deceased) who was lying on the road, is not in consoflance wrth materials referred in the final report/Ex.A-2.

¶56

That apart, the respondents also examined the invcstrgadng officcr of the crime as RW-3 who deposed that as per the police report Hanmanthu had sustained grievous injuries while rwo o[ his friends suffered simple injuries and Ramcsh I(umar Soni/deceased sustained injuries before the accident.

¶57

Pcrtinendy, in the inquest report of Ramesh Kumar Sai/deceased/Ex.A-3, rhe mediators opined that the death of thc deceased was due to hit by unknown vehicle. Therefore, h the given materials, it is clearly discernable that the conclusion recorded in the charge sheet is nor being validated by any input. '--

¶58

r/?

¶59

PSK,]&NTR,J Macma 3309²⁰⁰⁹

¶60

¶61

1-5.^{'I-hereforethe evidcnce placed by the respondents is}

¶62

outwcighing^{the version grvcnby the PW-2 and in absence of any} other^{material clinching the involvement of the scooter in causing} the iniury^{to the deceased,recording any adverse conclusion} against the^{owner and insurero[ the scooter would be untcnable} and unjustiFred.^{In effect, wc arc of the considcrcd opinion that}

¶63

the impugned^{order is sustainableand deserves to be confirmed'}

¶64

'fhere shall no 16 In consequencc,^{thc appealis dismissed} order as to^costs.

¶65

Asa sequel,^{misccllaneous} Petltlons^{pending rf anY,}

¶66

stancls closed.

¶67

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH^ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶68

//TRUE COPY//

¶69

sEcnok; CER

¶70

To, 1. The chairman^{Motor Accidentclaims Tribunal -cum-chiefJudge,city civil} Courts, Hyderabad^{(With recordsif any)}

¶71

One CC to SRl.^{M. MADHAVA REDDY,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶72

One CC to SRl.^{NARESH BYRAPANENI,Advocate [OPUC]} 4. Two CD Copies \ DL .-Y

¶73

HIGH COURT

¶74

DATED:1111212O23

¶75

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3309^{of 2009}

¶76

1ti F_ STAI€
k
J.J [ 6 llno ?$2[
.,;i-
i-- -.r"r.,'

¶77

DISMISSING^{THE APPEAL}

¶78

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶79

MONDAY THE ELEVENTH^{DAY OF DECEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶80

PRESENT

¶81

THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY} AND THE HONOURABLE SRI^{JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI}

¶82

MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 330I OF 2009}

¶83

Between:

¶84

l.Smt.VijayaSoni,WoLateRameshKumarSoni,Occ:HouseWife'Rl/o H.No.2-i-+s, Tobaco^{Bazar, Secunderabad.}

¶85

Avush soni, s/o Late^{Ramesh Kumarsoni, aged 20 years student, minor Fl/o} H.trto.Z-t^-+S, Tobaco^{Bazar, Secunderabad.}

¶86

Krishna Soni, S/o Late^{Ramesh Kumar Sorli,aged 18 years Student, minor}

¶87

Petitioners 2^and 3^{are being minors rep. by their mother Petitioner No.1 )}

¶88

All Rl/o H.No.2-1-45,^{Tobaco Bazar, Secunderabad.}

¶89

...APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

¶90

AND

¶91

'l.MadiReddySudhir,S/oLateSudarshanRao,agemajor,Occ:BusinessR/o Pi;i tto.s,' sionr.tha^{Nagar, North A.G.Colony,Near E S IHospital'} Hyderabad.

¶92

2.NationallnsuranceCompanyLimited,Rep.byitsDivisio^nalManager, - ijivis-ionaf Office, lV Flooi, Swapnalok Comilex,-S.D.Road, Secunderabad. atiii;^{pot"tN".sstzostyioqt67b1749vatidfiom22.7.2004 to 21.07.20o5)}

¶93

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶94

Appeal Under sectionlT3^{of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in} o.P.No.21 180f 2005dated31^{.03.20090nthefileof the court of the chairman} Motor Accident claims^{Tribunal -cum-chief Judge,city civil courts,Hyderabad-} ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing and upon perusing the groundsof} appeal, the Judgment and^{Decree of the Lower courtandthe material papers in the} case and upon hearing^{the arguments of Mr. M. MADHAVA REDDY, Advocatefor} the Appellants and of^{Mr. A. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, Advocate for the Respondent} No. 2

¶95

This Court doth Order^{and Decree as follows:}

¶96

1 . That the Motor Accident Civil^{Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is} dismissed;

¶97

That there shall be no order as to^{costsin this appeal.}

¶98

SD/. MOHD. SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Chairman Motor Accident Claims^{Tribunal -cum- Chief Judge, City Civil} Courts, Hyderabad

¶103

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATEDi11l1212023

DECREE

MACMA.No.3309 of 2009

¶109

DISMISSING THE APPEAL

¶110

.l--0
1P VVA

Smt. Vijaya Soni and 2 Others v. Madi Reddy Sudhir and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vijaya Soni and 2 Others v. Madi Reddy Sudhir and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Birkad Nirmala Vs The Adarsh Co- operative Urab Bank Ltd.

Mr. Srinivas Reddy Mudiganti Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

K. Percy Susan Vs State of Telangana

M/s Dnc Infrastructure-Private Limited Vs The Superintendent

Mr. Amar Dixit Vs The Income Tax Officer - Ward 1

Mr. Narahari Angarekula Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax