(Prayer: Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC before the High Court

IA NO: 1 OF 2008(MACMAMP 570 OF 2008

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased fix an early date for hearing the appeal)

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant before the Tribunal, aggrieved by the order dated 24.09.2007 passed in M.V.O.P. No.314 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant for Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that the petitioner/injured/claimant was aged about 11 years at the time of the accident. While so, on 16.02.2005, at about 1:00 PM, while she was crossing the road near her school after attending to a talent test at Phirangipuram, the luggage auto of the 1st respondent bearing No. AP 7 TT 4312 (hereinafter referred to as “offending auto”), being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Narasaraopet side and hit her, resulting in grievous injuries on her right foot and other parts of the body. She was given first aid at Perecherla and later shifted to the Hospital of Dr.Aravindababu i.e., Amulya Nursing Home, Narasaraopet. Inspite of treatment taken the injuries have not healed. The doctors have performed plastic surgery on her right leg. The injuries resulted in disfiguration of right leg and permanent disability. Hence, the claim.

4. The 2nd respondent is the insurer of the 1st respondent’s auto. The respondent No.1, who is the owner of the offending auto remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement, denying the allegations in the petition and did not admit the averments regarding the narration of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver of the respondent No.1’s auto, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and nature of the injuries sustained by her.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial:

                  1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No. AP 7 TT 4312 by its driver? Is so, whether the petitioner sustained injuries?

                  2) Whether the petitioner would be entitled for compensation? If so, what would be just amount of compensation that the petitioner would be entitled to and against whom?

                  3) To what relief?

6. The Trial went on and during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were the documents marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

7. After hearing both sides and on appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal opined that the petitioner had failed to prove that the accident occurred in the manner alleged by her. It further held that the mere filing of a charge sheet against the auto driver did not establish that the accident had occurred as alleged. As no explanation was provided for the ten-day delay in reporting the accident to the police, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner’s claim.

8. Being aggrieved by such finding, the claimant preferred the present appeal, on the point that the Tribunal gravely erred in dismissing the claim only on the point that information give to the police after 10 days.

9. Heard Sri T.S.Rayalu, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri V.Raghu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

10. Perused the record.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it is a case of crush injury to the leg of a minor girl, aged about 11 years as on the date of the accident. The claimant’s father was examined as P.W.1 and, of course, he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence of the accident. According to him, somebody had immediately taken the girl to the nearest hospital after the accident. Thereafter, they shifted their daughter to Amulya Nursing Home, Narasaraopet, and subsequently to NRI Hospital, where she underwent multiple surgeries. P.W.2 is the doctor, who deposed that on the very same day of the accident, the claimant/injured was admitted to their hospital. He would further submit that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim by disbelieving the occurrence of the accident solely on the ground that there was a delay of 10 days in reporting the accident to the police.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the claim, as the petitioner failed to establish that the accident occurred in the manner alleged. He would submit that there was an unexplained delay of 10 days in reporting the accident to the police and that the evidence of P.W.1, who was not an eyewitness, could not establish the occurrence of the accident. He would further contend that the mere filing of a charge sheet against the auto driver would not, by itself, prove the accident or the manner in which it occurred.

13. Having heard the submissions made on both sides, now the point that would emerge for determination in this appeal is:

                  “Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claimant failed to prove the occurrence of the accident and its manner, particularly in view of the delay of 10 days in reporting the accident to the police?”

14. There is no dispute regarding the accident that was occurred and this girl sustained injuries. Learned Tribunal suspected the involvement of the offending auto because of the delay.

15. In Raj Kumar Das (D) Thr. Lrs. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 541), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that:

                  A claim under beneficial legislation cannot be discarded on account of minor procedural discrepancies, such as a delay in giving information to the police or an incorrect registration number of the offending vehicle.

16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above case has categorically held that a claim cannot be discarded on account of minor discrepancies, such as delay in giving information to the police or an incorrect registration number of the offending vehicle. In the present case, the claimant is a minor girl who sustained severe injuries, resulting in disfigurement and adversely affecting her future prospects, including her marriage prospects, career, and education. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim solely on the ground of delay in reporting the accident to the police.

17. The impugned order would further show that the tribunal did not even assess the compensation for which the minor girl is entitled, to make a decision in this matter by this court. It is apposite to remand the matter to the tribunal for assessment of compensation for which the minor girl is entitled to fix a just compensation.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.09.2007 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 314 of 2005 is hereby set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur, with a direction to evaluate the evidence on record and assess just compensation in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both counsels having appeared before this Court, the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on August 10, 2026, without waiting for any fresh notice from the Tribunal.

The Registry is directed to return the original record to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.

As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.