BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT COURT: NELLORE
Present: G.SRINIVAS Chairman
Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
Cum-Principal District Judge
NELLORE
Monday, the 18th day of May 2026
M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
Maddali Sathish Babu @ Maddali Satish Babu Petitioner ..
Vs.
1. Kolakatla Sunil
2. Gilaka Padmavathi
3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager Subedarpet Road, Nellore City.
4. Pothanaboina Sudheer Babu Respondents ..
[The 4th respondent is added as per orders dated 23.6.2025 in I.A.No.1330/2024]
This petition coming on 29.4.2026 for hearing before me, in the presence of Sri A.V.S.Ravindra Kumar – Advocate for the petitioner, and of Sri
N.Sreenivasulu Reddy – Advocate for the 3rd respondent, and the respondents 1, 2 and 4 having remained ex parte, and upon hearing having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following—
O R D E R
This petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of ₹.53,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.03.2021 on National
Highway No.16 at Kavali near the crossroads of Alliguntapalem due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent in driving the Bolero car bearing
Page 2 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 registration No.AP-26-M-4380 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent.
(i) At the first instance, the present petition was filed claiming compensation of ₹.90,00,000/- but subsequently by filing an application in IA
No.501/2026, the petitioner reduced his claim to ₹.53,00,000/-as per orders
dated 20.3.2026.
(ii) During the pendency of the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application in IA No.1330/2024 and brought on record the 4th respondent as per the orders of this court dated 23.6.2025 stating that as on the date of the accident, the 4th respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle.
2. Case of the Petitioner: - The contentions of the petitioner, as per the averments made in his claim application, in brief, are as follows: -
(i) The petitioner was aged about 38 years, hale and healthy and was earning ₹.20,000/- per month by running a Flexi (banner and flex shop) as on the date of the accident.
(ii) On 21.3.2021 the petitioner and one Naresh were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-39-CC-5969, ridden by another friend
Srinivasulu from Kandukur to Kavali, and when they reached near
Alliguntapalem crossroad on National Highway No.16 at about 2.30 a.m. the offending vehicle being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed without blowing horn dashed their motorcycle from its back, as a result of which all the three riders on the motorcycle fell down on the road and sustained severe injuries.
(iii) The petitioner sustained brain injury, hemorrhage contusion right frontal lobe, depressed fracture right frontal bone compressing right frontal lobe,
Page 3 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 fracture roof of right orbital, anterior and posterior wall of right Fresenius, fracture right temporal bone, fracture right maxilla extending to interior wall of right orbit, bacterial meningitis, severe crush injury of left lower limb with avulsion injury left thigh, compound comminuted fracture distal femur and proximal tibia left, and grade II pressure sore sacral and gluteal region.
(iv) Immediately, the injured were shifted to the Government Hospital at Kavali by 108 Ambulance, and later the petitioner was shifted to Vijaya
Hospital, Chennai, where he underwent treatment both as inpatient and outpatient by spending ₹.30,00,000/- towards medical, transport and other expenses. As he could not recover in the said hospital, later he took better treatment at Lakshmi Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole under Dr Ravindra Babu
Abburi, as inpatient and outpatient by spending ₹.5,00,000/- for medical, transport and other expenses. He is bedridden, and is unable to do any work as
before, thereby lost his earnings and became permanently disabled. He
required an attendant during the course of his entire treatment.
(v) The accident was reported to police, and a case in Crime
No.96/2021 was registered at Kavali Rural Police Station.
(vi) As the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner took place due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent in driving the offending vehicle owned by the 2nd and 4th respondents, which stood insured with the 3rd respondent as on the date of the accident, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
3. Despite service of notice, the respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to contest the proceedings and remained ex parte. Despite substituted service of notice by way of publication in Prajasakthi Daily Newspaper, Nellore District, as the 4th respondent did not choose to appear before the Court and contest the proceedings, he also was set ex parte.
Page 4 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026
4. Case of the 3 rd Respondent: - The 3rd respondent filed counter, denying the material averments made in the petition with regard to age, avocation and income of the petitioner, including the manner in which the accident took place, and inter alia contended in brief as follows: -
(i) The present petition in M.V.O.P.No.203/2022, along with
M.V.O.P.No.201/2022 and M.V.O.P.No.202/2022 arose from out of the very same accident, which are filed claiming compensation for injuries sustained by the rider and pillion riders of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-39-CC- 5969.
(ii) The documents reveal that the petitioner and two others were proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-CC-5969 on triple-riding. The rider of the motorcycle by name Srinivasulu was not having valid driving license to ride the same by the time of the accident. As such the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings. As the petitioner and the other riders of the motorcycle violated the provisions of the
Motor Vehicles Act, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to them, and due to non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the motorcycle the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(iii) The mandatory provisions under Section 134(C) and 158(6) of the
Motor Vehicles Act are not complied with. The compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and exaggerated. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the petition against the 3rd respondent with costs.
(iv) The 3rd respondent filed additional counter, contending that though it is the case of the petitioner that the offending vehicle dashed their motorcycle from back side, as per Exhibit B-1 photographs of the motorcycle no damage was caused to the backside of the said motorcycle, which makes it
Page 5 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 clear that the version of the petitioner is a false one and the offending vehicle did not hit their motorcycle as alleged and narrated in the petition.
(v) In the additional counter, it is further contended that as per the
F.I.R., ‘an unknown vehicle’ hit the motorcycle, whereas the wound certificate of the petitioner discloses that, he sustained injuries in RTA due to skid and fall from a two-wheeler, from which it is evident that the accident took place only due to the own negligence of the three riders on the motorcycle, and the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident.
(vi) It is further contended in the additional counter that the 4th respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident i.e., 21.3.2021, and the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent on 24.3.2021, whereas as per the chargesheet, on 8.4.2021 the 4th respondent, who was not the owner of the offending vehicle as on that day, produced the 1st respondent before Kavali Rural Police Station stating that he caused the accident, which gives rise to suspicion about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident in question, and that the circumstances reveal that the case is foisted by the riders of the motorcycle in collusion with the 1st and 4th respondents and police, by falsely implicating the offending vehicle to get wrongful compensation. Thus, contending that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and did not cause the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner or the other riders of the motorcycle, as such, the 3rd respondent has not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, it is prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial—
(1) Whether the petitioner herein sustained injuries due to the rash
and negligent driving of driver of Mahindra Bolero bearing
No.AP-26-M-4380?
Page 6 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so,
to what amount and against whom?
(3) To what relief?
6. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs 1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the petitioner and Exhibits A-1 to A-6 and X-1 and
X-2 were marked.
(i) On behalf of the 3rd respondent RWs 1 to 4 were examined and
Exhibits B-1 to B-7 and X-3 to X-6 were marked.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record, including the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent.
8. ISSUE No.(1): - It is the case of the petitioner that he received injuries due to the rash and negligent act of the 1st respondent in driving the offending vehicle, whereas it is the case of the 3rd respondent that the offending vehicle is not at all involved in the accident and the accident was due to the own negligence of the petitioner and the other riders of the motorcycle.
9. To substantiate his version, the petitioner, in his affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination as PW-1, reiterated the contentions of the claim petition.
He further clearly stated that the matter was reported to police and a case was registered against the 1st respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. Through him, attested photocopy of
F.I.R. was marked as Exhibit A-1, and attested photocopy of chargesheet was marked as Exhibit A-2.
(i) During cross-examination he clearly stated that he and two others were proceeding on the two-wheeler on the date of the accident, which belongs to the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.202/2022 (Srinivasulu). He clearly stated that as
Page 7 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 per his version while they were proceeding, unknown vehicle hit from behind.
He also stated that in the accident he sustained injuries, so also back side of the motorcycle was damaged. On confrontation, he stated that Exhibit B-1 is the photographs of the motorcycle on which they were proceeding, which is a blue colour motorcycle bearing No.AP-39-CC-5969. He also stated that as per
Exhibit B-1 photographs, damage on the backside of the motorcycle is not visible and the front side of the motorcycle was damaged.
(ii) Further, a perusal of the complaint attached to Exhibit A-1 F.I.R.
goes to show that the brother of one of the injured gave complaint to police about the accident, wherein he stated that somebody telephoned and informed him that three people proceeding on a motorcycle met with an accident, which might have been caused by some unknown vehicle, and were shifted to the
Government Hospital, Kavali, and thereupon he visited the Government
Hospital, Kavali, and from there the relatives of two of the injured persons shifted them to Medicover Hospital, Nellore, whereas one injured person (the petitioner herein) was shifted to Chennai. He is not an eyewitness to the accident, and even those who informed him did not specifically state that any particular vehicle, either a two-wheeler or a four-wheeler caused the accident.
Thus, as per Exhibit A-1 F.I.R., the accident was assumed to have been caused by an unknown vehicle.
10. To substantiate its version, the 3rd respondent examined the
Investigation Officer of the case as RW-2, and a Surveyor of National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI) as RW-4 and marked Exhibits B-2 to B-4 and Exhibit
X-8.
(i) According to RW-2, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Kavali Rural
Police Station, who investigated Crime No.96/2021 registered for the accident concerned in this case, as per Exhibit A-1/F.I.R., one Kavali Mahesh gave
Page 8 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 complaint stating that the accident occurred due to hitting of an unknown vehicle, and the nature of the vehicle which caused the accident was not stated in the complaint. He also stated that they (police) have not made any attempt to collect the evidence that the offending vehicle is the root cause of the said accident. He clearly admitted that Exhibits B-2 to B-4 are the statements of all the three riders proceeding on the motorcycle, including that of the petitioner (Exhibit B-2), recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the course of investigation. He clearly admitted that Naresh and Srinivasulu did not state
before him that the accident was caused as the offending vehicle (Bolero) hit
their motorcycle.
(ii) Exhibits B-2 to B-4 clearly reveal that all the three injured persons clearly stated before the police that ‘as some unknown vehicle dashed their motorcycle from behind, they fell down along with the motorcycle and having received severe injuries all of them, they became unconscious’. The statement of the petitioner herein under Exhibit B-2 does not bear any date, and it was also categorically admitted by RW-2/Sub-Inspector of Police.
(iii) RW-2 further stated that the petitioner took treatment at Vijaya
Hospital, Chennai, and he was discharged on 25.5.2021, and RW-2 recorded his statement after his discharge. RW-2 clearly stated that even in his statement the petitioner has not stated the type of vehicle which caused the accident. RW- 2 states that four days after the said accident, the victims stated that Bolero vehicle hit them.
(iv) According to RW-2, as per the discharge summary of the petitioner, he fell due to skidding of the motorcycle. RW-2 clearly stated that he did not collect the photos of the two-wheeler to know whether it was subject to any damage. He clearly stated that even as per the hospital intimation, and the wound certificates of the petitioners in M.V.O.P.Nos.201/2022 & 202/2022, the
Page 9 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 accident occurred due to an unidentified vehicle. He also stated that in the wound certificate of the petitioner in the present M.V.O.P.No.203/2022, it is mentioned that the injured had fallen by skidding from two-wheeler on 21.3.2021.
(v) RW-2 further stated that except the oral statement of the owner of the offending vehicle, there is no other documentary proof that the offending vehicle was involved in the said accident and also stated that he failed to collect
CCTV footage from Kavali Toll Plaza. RW-2 categorically stated in his evidence that he had not made any enquiry whether the victims skid from the motorcycle or the offending vehicle hit them. He also stated that he has not collected the accident spot photographs at any point of time and that there is no record with police that they brought the victims’ motorcycle to Kavali Rural
Police Station initially and subsequently they returned the same to the victims.
He further stated that he had not taken any steps to cause arrest of the driver/ 1st respondent until the 4th respondent surrendered him on 8.4.2021.
11. It is also the evidence of RW-2 that on the very date of the accident itself, he personally visited the Toll Plaza, and subsequently as the injured person stated that Bolero type vehicle hit him, he went personally visited the
Toll Plaza again and verified the CC footage and found that the offending vehicle is the root cause for the accident, and thereupon he called the owner of the offending vehicle, who admitted that his driver caused the accident. In the very next sentence, he stated that he made a call to the owner of the offending vehicle ten days after the accident.
(i) In this context, the evidence of RW-2 suffers from several contradictions and discrepancies. At one breath he says that on the very date of the accident he visited the Toll Plaza, and at another breath he says that on the very next date of the accident, he went to the Toll Plaza and investigated
Page 10 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 the case. He clearly stated that he has not stated in the record that the vehicle observed by him in CCTV footage at the Toll Plaza and the vehicle that was surrendered before him were one and the same.
(ii) Further, as per the chargesheet under Exhibit A-2, the 4th respondent himself handed over the 1st respondent as well as the offending vehicle to the police. But during evidence, RW-2 says that on 8.4.2021 the owner and driver together came to police station but did not bring the offending vehicle and they did not hand over the offending vehicle to police, and that he did not verify the vehicle whether any damage was caused to it in the accident.
At another breath he stated that he perused the record of the Bolero vehicle on the date of the surrendering of the vehicle before them (police). He categorically stated that he has not placed any application to verify the CCTV footage at the
Toll Plaza and there is no documentary proof that he personally verified the same. He also stated that did not take the CC footage though he personally verified. He also stated that there may not be any record available with the Toll
Plaza that he visited and verified the CC footage there.
12. RW-4, who is a Surveyor of National Highways Authority of India, is examined on behalf of the 3rd respondent, and through him Exhibits X-7 and
X-8 are marked. Exhibit X-7 authorization given to him by the Projector, NHAI,
Ongole, and Exhibit X-8 is the letter addressed by the Project Director,
Simhapuri Expressway Limited to the Project Director, NHAI, Ongole dated 24.2.2026 along with the screenshot of the Vehicle Search Report (TMS Report) of Musunuru Toll Plaza relating to the offending vehicle from 20.3.2021 to 24.3.2021. It is confirmed through Exhibit X-8 that on verification of CCTV footage and relevant entries maintained at Musunuru Toll Plaza, including toll payment receipts and TMS Reports, the details of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.AP-26-M-4380 could not be found.
Page 11 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026
(i) RW-4 clearly stated in his evidence that the offending vehicle did not pass through Musunur Toll Plaza from 20.3.2021 to 24.3.2021 either from
Ongole to Nellore or from Nellore to Ongole.
13. It is pertinent to note that, present claim petition is filed arraying the 2nd respondent as the owner of the offending vehicle.
(i) Subsequently, after the 3rd respondent examined RW-1 - the Senior
Assistant of RTA Office, Nellore and Exhibit X-4 – B-register extract of the offending vehicle was marked, and as it was stated by RW-1 that as on 21.3.2021 the owner of the offending vehicle was the 4th respondent, and the ownership was changed in favour of the 2nd respondent on 27.3.2021, a petition was filed and the 4th respondent was brought on record as the owner of the offending vehicle as on the date of the accident.
(ii) As per the chargesheet and the evidence of RW-2 as already stated above, on 8.4.2021, the 4th respondent, representing him to be owner of the offending vehicle produced the 1st respondent before the police that he caused the accident on 21.3.2021. As already stated, RW-2 categorically stated that except oral statement of the 4th respondent, there is no other documentary proof that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.
(iii) Even in regard to the ownership of the offending vehicle, there are discrepancies in the evidence of RW-2. He stated that he perused the record of the Bolero vehicle on the date of the surrendering of the vehicle (8.4.4021)
before them (police) and verified through the software available with them that
the 4th respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle. But, on confrontation of Exhibit X-4, he admitted that the ownership of the offending vehicle was transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent on 27.3.2021 from the 4th respondent. He had not examined the 2nd respondent. It is also the specific
Page 12 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 evidence of RW-2 that the injured person informed him that there was no insurance policy for the motorcycle.
14. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that according to the petitioner, either in his statement recorded by police at the first instance or in his evidence as PW-1, some unknown vehicle dashed on the backside of their motorcycle, thereby causing the accident, and immediately after the accident, he became unconscious, and the same was also confirmed by RW-2 – the
Investigating Officer of the case. Though he stated that four days after the incident the victim informed him about the involvement of a Bolero car, he is not specific as to who stated so, and he did not record the statement of the said victim to that effect. There is no evidence on record even to show that the petitioner and his friends sustained injuries due to skidding of the motorcycle, except a mention in the wound certificate of the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.203 of 2022.
15. In the aforesaid backdrop, upon thorough analysis of the evidence of RWs 1, 2, and 4, more particularly that of RW-2/Investigating Officer, in the light of the recitals in Exhibit A-1/F.I.R., Exhibit A-2/chargesheet, Exhibit X-4/B- register extract, Exhibit X-8/Letter & Screenshot relating to the Toll Plaza, and the statements of the victims/injured recorded by police during investigation under Exhibits B-2 to B-4, this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold that the petitioner and his two friends who were proceeding on the motorcycle received injuries in an accident caused by an unknown vehicle. However, the petitioner failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident resulting in injuries to him. Accordingly, this issue is answered.
16. ISSUE No.(2): - In view of the findings on Issue No.1, since it is held that the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident, he is entitled to compensation.
Page 13 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 17. QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION: - The petitioner at the first instance claimed compensation of ₹.90,00,000/-, but surprisingly when the matter was coming up for arguments, by filing a petition in I.A.No.501/2026, the petitioner reduced his claim to ₹.53,00,000/- as per the orders dated 20.3.2026.
17.1 Medical Expenses: - The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and filed Exhibits A-3 – attested photocopy of wound certificate and Exhibit A-5 – bunch of medical bills for ₹.34,68,748/-. He also examined the doctors who treated him at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai (VITO), and Lakshmi Super Specialty
Hospital, Ongole as PWs 2 and 3 on commission, and through them got marked his case sheets at the respective hospitals as Exhibits X-1 and X-2.
(i) Exhibit A-3 attested photocopy of the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by VITO clearly shows that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital due to RTA/skid and fall from two wheeler on 21.3.2021 around 3.30 a.m. near Kavali, injured head, face, left lower limb. It further reveals that he sustained traumatic brain injury with right temporal, right maxilla bone fracture, and compound fractures left femur and left tibia, and the said injuries are grievous in nature.
(ii) The evidence of PW-2 is in line with and confirms the contents of
Exhibit A-3 wound certificate. He categorically stated the nature of each of the injuries suffered by the petitioner and the treatment rendered to him by their hospital. His evidence is specific that the petitioner suffered severe crush injury of left lower limb with avulsion injury left thigh, and compound comminuted fracture type-III distal femur and proximal tibia left, and suffered from bacterial meningitis, post meningitis hydrocephalus, sceptic shock, and grade-II pressure sore sacral and gluteal region. While clearly explaining the date-wise treatment provided by them to the petitioner from 21.3.2021 to 20.5.2021, he said that the left leg of the petitioner was amputated above knee, and the petitioner got
Page 14 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 discharged into a tertiary care centre for domiciliary care. According to him, the said treatment and procedures were done on cash payment of approximately ₹.30,00,000/-. He confirmed the bills issued by VITO to a tune of ₹.30,05,621/- from out of the bunch of medical bills under Exhibit A-5.
(iii) PW-3, who is a Neuro surgeon, deposed that the petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 26.5.2021 for follow up treatment for craniotomy surgery defect over right side of the brain, left knee amputation wound in leg, tracheostomy wound and bed sores over lower back, for which surgery was done by another hospital, and that he rendered required treatment for the said injuries and the petitioner was discharged from his hospital on 19.7.2021.
According to him, out of the bills under Exhibit A-5, the petitioner paid ₹.3,99,150/- towards the bills from serial numbers 285 to 367 issued by their hospital.
(iv) Thus, considering the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 and Exhibits A-3,
A-5, X-1, X-2, the petitioner can be awarded a sum of ₹.34,04,771/- (₹.30,05,621/- + ₹.3,99,150/-) towards reimbursement of medical expenses, which would meet the ends of justice.
17.2 Attendant Charges, Special Diet & Extra Nourishment, Transport
Expenses, and Pain and Sufferance: - In view of the above discussion, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the nature of treatment he had to take, and the physical and mental trauma he might have undergone during the period of his treatment at VITO and also at Ongole from 21.3.2021 up to 19.7.2021, i.e., for a period of about four months, though no specific documentary evidence is adduced, this Tribunal feels that it would be justified if the petitioner is awarded an amount of ₹.50,000/- towards attendant charges, ₹.50,000/- towards special diet and extra nourishment, ₹.25,000/- towards transport expenses, and ₹.4,00,000/- towards pain and sufferance.
Page 15 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 17.3 Permanent Disability: - To prove that he suffered from permanent disability, the petitioner relied on his evidence as PW-1 and filed Exhibits A-4 and A-6 – disability certificate and disability card issued by the Medical Board,
Government Area Hospital, Kavali. To prove the authenticity of Exhibits A-4 and
A-6, the petitioner also examined one of the doctors of the Medical Board as
PW-4. In his evidence PW-4 categorically stated that the team of doctors who examined the petitioner assessed his disability for his left leg amputation above knee upper 1/3rd part as 85%, which is permanent and partial in nature. In his cross-examination it was elicited that the disability deposed to by him is with regard to left lower limb and does not relate to the total body of the petitioner.
(i) The evidence of PW-3, coupled with the recitals in Exhibits A-4 and
A-6 clearly shows that the petitioner suffered 85%physical (locomotor/orthopedic) disability. However, according to PW-3, the disability of 80% is with regard to lower limb only and is not in relation to the total body of the petitioner. In view of the the percentage of disability proportionate to the total body can be taken at 50%. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation for 50% permanent disability.
(ii) There is no much dispute with regard to the age of the petitioner.
The petitioner is stated to be 38 years’ old as on the date of the accident.
Though the petitioner states that he was running a Flexi (banner and flex shop) and earning ₹.20,000/- per month as on the date of the accident, except his oral testimony to that effect, the petitioner did not choose to adduce any evidence and did not produce any document to show that he ever run such business, to prove his avocation and income. However, considering the age of the petitioner, and in the absence of any proof of avocation and income, this Tribunal is inclined to fix his income notionally at ₹.500/- per day i.e., ₹.15,000/- per month as on the date of the accident. As per the case law espoused in “Sarla Verma
Page 16 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Another”, 1 multiplier for the persons in the age group of 36 to 40 is “15”. Therefore, as age of the petitioner is taken
as 38 years as on the date of the accident, the multiplier applicable for
computation of compensation in the present case is taken as “15”. Thus, upon calculation, the compensation for permanent disability is arrived at ₹.13,50,000/- (₹.15,000/- x 12 x 15 x 50%), and the petitioner is entitled for the said amount towards permanent disability.
18. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to compensation of ₹.52,79,771/-, i.e., ₹.34,04,771/- towards medical expenses, ₹.50,000/- towards attendant charges, ₹.50,000/- towards special diet and extra nourishment, ₹.25,000/- towards transport expenses, and ₹.4,00,000/- towards pain and sufferance, and ₹.13,50,000/- towards permanent disability.
19. LIABILITY: - The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent vehemently argued that, it is clearly established from the evidence of RWs 1, 2 and 4 coupled with Exhibit A-1/F.I.R., Exhibit A-2/chargesheet, Exhibit X-4/B-register extract, Exhibit X-8/Letter & Screenshot relating to the Toll Plaza, and Exhibits
B-2 to B-4, that the petitioner and his two friends who were proceeding on a motorcycle fell down and received injuries due to skid of the motorcycle, and as the motorcycle was not insured, by colluding with RW-2/Sub-Inspector of Police, and the 1st and 4th respondents, they got falsely implicated the offending vehicle in the case to get compensation unlawfully, that too after transferring the offending vehicle in favour of the 2nd respondent with ulterior motives.
Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition, and in support of his contention he placed reliance on the following dictums—
* Sithara N.S. & Others, etc. v Sri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2
* Suresh s/o Mahadev Vathar v Siddarama & Others 3 1 2009 LawSuit (SC) 613 2 Civil Appeal Nos.14718-14719 of 2025 of Supreme Court 3 Miscellaneous First Appeal No.200941 of 2019 of High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench
Page 17 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 * Malavizhi v The Managing Director 4 * A.Chithara v G.A.Siva Kumar 5 * Roshan Lal and Others v Mahabir Singh & Others 6 * Shakuntala Devi & Others v Vijay 7
(i) The 3rd respondent examined its Assistant Manager as RW-3 and through him got marked Exhibits B-5 and B-6, copies of insurance policies of the offending vehicle in the names of the 4th respondent and the 2nd respondent respectively. Exhibit B-5 clearly shows that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent in the name of the 4th respondent, as on the date of the accident.
20. In the instant case, only the occurrence of the accident is proved, but neither the involvement of the offending vehicle nor the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle have been established.
(i) In a similarly situated case, in Sithara N.S. & Others, etc. v Sri Ram
General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the order of dismissal of claim applications by the Tribunal as well as High Court finding that the petitioners failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle driven by the 1st respondent, while holding that the principles of law cannot be set aside on the grounds of sympathy alone, and the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act must be established through credible evidence.
(ii) Similarly, in Suresh s/o Mahadev Vathar v Siddarama & Others (supra) the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka upheld the order of dismissal of the claim application by the Tribunal, while referring to a part of its judgment in ‘Veerappa & Another v Siddappa & Another’,8 to the following effect— 4 CMA (MD) No.918 of 2021 and 154 of 2022 of Madras High Court, Madhurai Bench 5 CMA (MD) No.61 of 2017 of Madras High Court Madhurai Bench 6 FAO 6545 of 2016 of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh 7 MAC Additional Public Prosecutor 382 of 2013 and CMA No.6893 of 2013 High Court of Delhi 8(2009) 1 KACJ 500
Page 18 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 "The experience has shown that this branch of law is slowly getting into the hands of unscrupulous people who are making a mockery of judicial process. A disturbing tread of unholy alliance among the police, the doctors, the lawyers and sometimes even the Insurance Company, to siphon out the public money, and make an unlawful gain is fast emerging. It is also gaining respectability and persons who indulge in such practices are acclaimed as most successful in their respective profession. This is a dangerous trend, if unchecked would undermine the judicial process. As the existing law is inadequate to check this malady, the Courts not only have to be careful in adjudicating such claims but also find ways to prevent such abuse They have to balance the interest of these accident victims and their legal heirs on one side, by giving them just compensation at the earliest, thus giving effect to the mandate of the parliament, and on the other hand, to see that the very process is not abused and exploited by a handful of persons, who have attained specialization in this field, to make personal gains at the cost of the exchequer. An onerous responsibility lies on the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative that a strong message is to be sent to the abusers of the judicial process to discourage them from indulging in such practices as well as the consequences of such abuse may result in foisting the liability exclusively on the insured- owner of the vehicle." 21. While fixing the liability and to render justice to the petitioner, this
Tribunal is inclined to examine the following common facts and circumstances in all the three claim petitions (i.e., M.V.O.P.Nos.201, 202 and 203 of 2022) that arose out of the accident that occurred on 21.3.2021: -
(i) These petitions are in filed on 11.4.2022, i.e., more than one year after the accident that took place on 21.3.2021, claiming compensation stating that the petitioners sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle (Bolero car bearing registration No.AP-26-M- 4380).
(ii) The accident did take place on National Highway No.16 near
Alliguntapalem crossroad flyover bridge. A perusal of the location of the accident on ‘Google Maps’ shows that it was on Kavali bypass road, where there are no
Page 19 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 residential houses or shops. The time of the accident was at about 2.30 or 3.30 a.m. on the intervening night of 20/21.3.2021. Therefore, there is no possibility of the accident being witnessed by anybody, and the possibility of the drivers of the vehicles passing by at that time noticing the accident is also remote. So, the only evidence available to prove the accident is that of the injured persons/victims of the accident.
(iii) Either in their statements recorded by police under Section 161
Cr.P.C. or in their evidence as PW-1 in the respective claim petitions, the three injured persons, at one voice, stated that some unknown vehicle dashed on the backside of their motorcycle, thereby causing the accident, and immediately after the accident, they became unconscious. Even as per the F.I.R. in Crime
No.96/2021 of Kavali Rural Police Station, it was registered against an ‘unknown vehicle’ without mentioning the nature of the vehicle that had caused the accident, whether it is a two-wheeler or a four-wheeler or some other vehicle. Even the brother of one of the injured persons, who gave report to police, stated therein that somebody informed him that three persons proceeding on a motorcycle received injuries, and it might have been caused by an unknown vehicle. As already stated, the Investigating Officer of the case, i.e., RW-2 the then Sub-Inspector of Police of Kavali Rural Police Station, also confirmed the said facts in his evidence.
(iv) Though according to RW-2 four days after the said accident, the victims stated that Bolero vehicle hit them, he does not specifically state as to who among the injured have stated about the involvement of the offending vehicle, and categorically admitted that he did not record their statements again after they stated about the involvement of the offending vehicle. It is also stated by RW-2 in his evidence that the police have not made any attempt to collect evidence that the offending vehicle is the root cause of the said accident. He categorically stated that he did not make any enquiry whether the victims
Page 20 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 skidded from the motorcycle or the offending vehicle hit them. Furthermore, the
Investigating Officer/RW-2 specifically stated that except the oral statement of the owner of the offending vehicle (4th respondent) there is no other documentary proof that the offending vehicle was involved in the said accident and that he did not collect CCTV footage from Kavali Toll Plaza. RW-2 also stated that he did not take any steps to cause arrest of the driver/1st respondent until the owner/4th respondent surrendered him on 8.4.2021. Actually, as on 8.4.2021, the 2nd respondent was the owner of the offending vehicle, but not the 4th respondent. RW-2 also clearly stated that he did not examine and did not record the statement of the 2nd respondent during the course of his investigation. Further, as per the evidence of the Surveyor of NHAI, the offending vehicle did not pass through Musunuru Toll Plaza between 20.3.2021 and 24.3.2021. Therefore, the possibility of the offending vehicle causing the accident in question resulting in injuries to the petitioners is completely ruled out.
(v) From the above scenario, it is crystal clear that the offending vehicle is not involved in the accident and it is falsely implicated in the case and chargesheet was filed against the 1st respondent at the behest and influence of the 4th respondent by the Sub-Inspector of Police/RW-2. The respondents 1 and 4 did not choose to contest the proceedings and remained ex parte in all the claim petitions. These circumstances also give rise to the conclusion that under the guise of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle, by selling away the vehicle immediately after the accident i.e., on 27.3.2021, the 4th respondent falsely stated to police that it belonged to him on 8.4.2021, to have wrongful gain from the 3rd respondent.
(vi) On coming to know the perfunctory investigation made by RW-2, after recording his evidence, this Tribunal has addressed a letter to the
Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore District, to take departmental action
Page 21 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 against Sri K.Veera Pratap, Sub-Inspector of Police/ RW-2, for giving false evidence before the Tribunal and for conducting perfunctory investigation.
22. In the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, though the petitioners in all three claim petitions failed to prove the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, since the 4th respondent himself came to police station and surrendered the 1st respondent as the person responsible for the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioners, claiming to be the owner of the offending vehicle, it would be just and proper to impose liability of payment of compensation to the petitioners on the 1st and 4th respondents jointly and severally, while dismissing the petitions against the 2nd and 3rd respondents.
Accordingly, this issue is answered.
23. ISSUE No.(3): - In view of the findings on Issues No.1 and 2, this petition deserves to be allowed in part with proportionate costs awarding compensation of ₹.52,79,771/- to the petitioner with interest and costs, against the respondents 1 and 4, while dismissing the petition against the respondents 2 and 3. As the petitioner availed exemption from payment of court fee at the time of filing the claim application, as per the orders of the Principal District
Judge, Nellore, under Rule 475(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules,
he shall be directed to pay the court fee to avail the benefits of this award.
24. In the result, the petition is allowed in part with proportionate costs, awarding compensation of ₹.52,79,771/- to the petitioner, together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition till deposit or realization, against the respondents 1 and 4 jointly and severally. The compensation amount together with interest and costs shall be deposited within one month from the date of this order. On such deposit, since the petitioner has already spent considerable amount for his treatment, he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation with interest accrued thereon and
Page 22 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026 costs. Rest of the claim of the petitioner, including his claim against the 2nd and 3rd respondents is dismissed. The advocate fee is fixed at ₹.5,000/-. The petitioner is directed to pay court fee within 15 days from the date of this order, failing which, he is not entitled for interest on the compensation amount for the period of default till payment of court fee, and execution of decree is subject to payment of court fee.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 18th day of May 2026.
Sd/- (G.SRINIVAS)
Chairman
Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
Cum-Principal District Judge
NELLORE
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PETITIONER
PW-1 : Sri Maddali Sathish Babu @ Maddali Satish Babu PW-2 : Dr C.Rajasekhar Reddy PW-3 : Dr Ravindra Babu Abburi PW-4 : Dr D.Prasad
FOR 3 RD RESPONDENT
RW-1 : Sri Ch.Krishnaiah RW-2 : Sri K.Veera Pratap RW-3 : Sri A.Kantha Rao RW-4 : Sri P.Venkata Ganesh
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PETITIONER
Ex.A1 Attested photocopy of the F.I.R in Cr.No.96/2021 of Kavali Rural police station dated 21.3.2021.
Ex.A2 Attested photocopy of the chargesheet filed before the Additional
Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kavali, in connection with Crime
No.96/2021 of Kavali Rural Police Station against the 1st respondent.
Page 23 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026
Ex.A3 Attested photocopy of the wound certificate of the petitioner issued by Medicover Hospital, Nellore.
Ex.A4 Disability Certificate of the petitioner issued by the Medical Board, Government Area Hospital, Kavali.
Ex.A5 Bunch of medical bills (367 in number) of the petitioner issued by Vijaya Hospitals, Chennai and Lakshmi Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole for ₹.34,68,748/-.
Ex.A6 Disability Identity Card of the petitioner issued by the Medical Board, Government Area Hospital, Kavali.
Ex.X1 Case sheet of the petitioner maintained at Vijaya Hospital, Chennai.
Ex.X2 Case sheet of the petitioner maintained at Lakshmi Super Specialty Hospital, Ongole.
FOR 3 RD RESPONDENT
Ex.B1 Photographs (3 in number) of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP- 39-CC-5969.
Ex.B2 Statement of the petitioner (Satish Babu) recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated NIL.
Ex.B3 Statement of Srinivasulu recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
dated 24.3.2021.
Ex.B4 Statement Naresh recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. dated 24.3.2021.
Ex.B5 Copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle issued by the 3rd respondent in the name of the 4th respondent valid from 11.1.2021 to 10.1.2022.
Ex.B6 Copy of the insurance policy of the offending vehicle issued by the 3rd respondent in the name of the 2nd respondent valid from 30.4.2021 to 10.1.1022.
Ex.B7 Copy of e-mail dated 22.7.2023 sent by the counsel for the 3rd respondent to the Public Information Officer, Musunur Toll Plaza, along with reply e-mail dated 26.7.2023.
Ex.X3 Authorization letter issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Nellore, to RW-1.
Page 24 of 24
PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL M.V.O.P.No.203/2022
NELLORE May 18, 2026
Ex.X4 B-Register extract of the offending vehicle issued by the Registering Authority, Nellore.
Ex.X5 Attested photocopy of insurance policy of the offending vehicle issued by the 3rd respondent in the name of the 4th respondent.
Ex.X6 Attested photocopy of the pollution certificate of the offending vehicle.
Ex.X7 Attested photocopy of the authorization letter issued to RW-4 by the Project Director, NHAI, Ongole.
Ex.X8 Attested photocopy of the letter addressed by the Project Director, Simhapuri Expressway Limited to the Project Director, NHAI, Ongole
dated 24.2.2026 along with the screenshot of the Vehicle Search Report
(TMS Report) of Musunuru Toll Plaza relating to the offending vehicle from 20.3.2021 to 24.3.2021.
Sd/- (G.SRINIVAS)
Chairman
Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-
Cum-Principal District Judge
NELLORE