1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 02.08.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.284 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident was dismissed.

2. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that on 14.03.2014 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was proceeding on his Luna Moped along with his wife from Mahabubnagar towards Allipur Village, a Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.AP-22-X-7412, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against their vehicle, resulting in grievous injuries to him including fracture of the right humerus. It was pleaded that he underwent surgery and suffered permanent disability affecting his avocation as a mason and agriculturist. On that basis, compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- was claimed. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that there were discrepancies regarding the date of accident. The Tribunal observed that the date of accident was mentioned at different places as 14.03.2014, 15.03.2014 and 19.03.2014 and held that the claimant failed to establish that the injuries were sustained in the accident involving the offending vehicle. Consequently, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal adopted a hyper-technical approach in appreciating the evidence. It is submitted that the appellant admittedly suffered a fracture injury and underwent surgery. The FIR, charge sheet and conviction of the driver in the criminal case were brought on record. The discrepancies regarding the date of accident were minor in nature and could not have been made the sole basis for dismissing the entire claim petition. It is further contended that the claimant and his wife are illiterate villagers and the delay in lodging the complaint and variation in dates ought to have been viewed in the background of the circumstances under which the complaint came to be lodged.

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the impugned award of the Tribunal and submitted that the claimant failed to establish the very occurrence of the accident on the pleaded date and, therefore, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition.

5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

6. A perusal of the impugned award discloses that the Tribunal found that the claimant had suffered a fracture injury and underwent treatment including surgery. The wound certificate, discharge summary and medical records were marked as Exs.A2, A5 and X1 respectively. The Tribunal itself observed that the claimant sustained a fracture of the right humerus and remained as an inpatient. The Tribunal further observed that had negligence been established, the claimant would have been entitled to compensation under various heads. Thus, the factum of injuries and treatment is not seriously in dispute.

7. The dismissal of the claim petition is founded substantially upon inconsistencies relating to the date of accident. The record reveals that the accident date was referred to as 14.03.2014, 15.03.2014 and 19.03.2014 in different documents. The claimant attributed such discrepancies to mistakes committed while lodging the complaint and recording particulars in the medical records. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to reject the entire claim petition solely on that basis without undertaking a comprehensive examination of the surrounding circumstances and the documentary evidence available on record.

8. It is well settled that proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the Tribunal is expected to adopt a pragmatic approach while appreciating evidence. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies, particularly in cases involving illiterate villagers and delayed reporting of accidents, should not ordinarily result in rejection of a genuine claim without a thorough examination of the entire material available on record.

9. A further perusal of the impugned award shows that though the Tribunal discussed the discrepancies regarding the date of accident, it did not comprehensively analyse the evidentiary value of the charge sheet, the judgment in the criminal case marked as Ex.A4, the medical records and the surrounding circumstances in their proper perspective. The Tribunal also did not afford adequate consideration to the effect of the conviction recorded in the criminal proceedings and its bearing on the claim petition.

10. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground of discrepancies relating to the date of accident without undertaking a comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence available on record. Since the matter requires fresh consideration on all aspects, including the occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation, this Court deems it appropriate to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication after affording reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce further oral and documentary evidence, if any.

11. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the impugned Award and Decree dated 02.08.2019 passed by the Tribunal are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall afford reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce additional oral and documentary evidence, if any, and thereafter decide the claim petition afresh on all issues, uninfluenced by any observations made in this judgment. Considering that the claim petition pertains to the year 2014, the Tribunal shall make every endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 24.07.2026.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.