Authority: High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Order Date: 01.07.2026

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – S. Venkata Reddy (resident of Ameena Abbas Nagar, Kurnool). Respondents – 1) Andnada Rao (owner of auto bearing No.AP 28 W 1176), 2) MD Nawaz Khan (policy holder of the same auto), 3) Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited (insurer).
  • Nature of Proceeding: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal (Motor Accident) under Order 41 of CPC, challenging the order and decree dated 15.02.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal‑cum‑Family Court‑cum‑IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool (MACT) in M.V.O.P.No.437 of 2007.
  • Background: On 21.11.2006 the appellant was riding a motorcycle (No.AP 21 E 9354) when an auto bearing No.AP 28 W 1176, travelling in the opposite direction, allegedly drove rashly and collided with the motorcycle, causing fractures to the right wrist and grievous injury to the knee joint. The appellant was hospitalized at Government Hospital, Kurnool, then transferred to Viswabharati Super Specialty Hospital, Kurnool, and subsequently to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, incurring medical and attendant expenses of approximately Rs.30,000.
  • Claimant’s Profile: Age ~39 years, earning Rs.3,000 per month, became disabled due to the injuries.
  • Defence of Respondent‑3 (Insurer): Asserted no driver negligence, questioned the claimant’s proof of accident, vehicle fitness, and alleged collusion between claimant and vehicle owner.
  • Evidence Presented:
  • PW1 (claimant) and PW2 (Dr. B.V. Subba Reddy) testified.
  • Documentary evidence included FIR (Ex.A1), wound certificate (Ex.A2), charge sheet (Ex.A3), Lok Adalat docket (Ex.A4), medical bills, discharge summaries, X‑rays, treatment certificates, income tax returns, driving licence, vehicle registration certificates, insurance policy (Ex.B1), correspondence with police, and RTA authorisation letters.
  • RW1 (legal executive of insurer) and RW2 (RTO officer) testified on insurer’s side.
  • Findings of MACT (lower tribunal): Dismissed claim citing delay in FIR filing (FIR lodged on 01.04.2007) and alleged lack of evidence; held respondents not liable.
  • Appellate Court’s Legal Reasoning:
  • Emphasised that motor accident claims are governed by pre‑ponderance of probability, not beyond‑reasonable‑doubt standard.
  • Cited Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Rules 455‑476 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and several Supreme Court precedents (Bimla Devi v. HRTC, Ravi v. Badrinarayan, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp. v. P. Shanthi, Jacob Mathew, etc.) supporting a holistic view and acceptance of delayed FIR where justified.
  • Determined that the FIR, wound certificate, charge sheet, and Lok Adalat settlement clearly established the involvement of the offending vehicle and driver negligence.
  • Rejected insurer’s defence of collusion and lack of fitness, noting no evidence of policy breach or licence violation.
  • Quantification of Compensation (Court’s own assessment):

| Head | Amount (₹) |

| Pain & Suffering – Grievous injury | 25,000 |

| Pain & Suffering – Simple injuries (3) | 10,000 |

| Medical Treatment & Attendant Charges | 50,000 |

| Transportation | 10,000 |

| Loss of Earning Capacity (₹5,000 per month) | 20,000 |

| Total | 1,50,000 |

  • Interest: 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till actual payment.

Final Outcome

  • The appellate court set aside the MACT order and decree dated 15.12.2012.
  • The appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,50,000 with 7.5% per annum interest from the date of filing the petition.
  • Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable, but the insurance company (Respondent 3) is primarily liable under the policy.
  • Payment must be made within two months:

1. If the claimant furnishes a bank account number within 15 days, the insurer shall deposit the amount directly into that account and file proof before the MACT.

2. Failing that, the insurer shall deposit the amount with the MACT, from which the claimant may withdraw it.

  • No order as to costs was made.
  • Any miscellaneous petitions pending in the appeal stand closed.

Topics: Motor Accident Compensation, Insurance Liability