Telangana High Court
Smt.Rafiya vs Sri Kola Ganapathi on 1 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3719 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of O.P.No.144 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for short 'The Tribunal') vide judgment and decree, dated 17.10.2005, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for the death of the deceased viz., Shafiq in the road accident.
3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the jeep and respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the said Jeep.
4. The facts of the case are that as usual the deceased Shafiq went to sell the bread in the surrounding villages of Nizamabad Town. As he did not return to the house, his wife/appellant went to III-Town Police Station, Nizamabad to file a complaint about missing of her husband and then the police asked her to go through some photos which were displayed on the board at the police station. After going through the photos, the appellant identified one of the photos as that of her husband and the police informed her that her husband died in 2 SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005 a motor vehicle accident which occurred in the limits of Jakranpally Police Station. Immediately, the appellant rushed to the Police Station, Jakranpally and on enquiry, she came to know that on 07.10.2001 at about 05.00 a.m., a jeep bearing No.AP-25/F-7834 proceeding towards Dichpally from Armoor side driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her husband and ran over him, due to which he died on the spot. Prior to the accident, the deceased was aged 30 years, he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.6,000/- per month by selling bread on commission and was contributing his earnings to the appellant. On account of the accident, the life of the deceased was shortened and the appellant is put to untold misery, mental shock and agony, as such she filed O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
5. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the jeep, filed written statement denying the averments of the petition and the manner of the accident. It is further contended that the alleged accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and that the driver of the jeep was having valid driving license at the material time of accident and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply. It is further contended that his vehicle was insured with respondent No.2- Insurance Company and if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that 3 SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005 the appellant is entitled for any compensation, the same may be awarded against respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the claim- petition against him.
6. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the averments of the petition, manner of accident, age, occupation and income of the deceased and further denied that the jeep was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and also denied the involvement of the deceased in the alleged accident. It is further contended that respondent No.1 had colluded with the appellant with the help of police and might have got involved the jeep and that the insured has not reported the matter of accident to respondent No.2- Insurance Company. It is further contended that the liability of this respondent is governed by the provisions of M.V. Act and Workmen's Compensation Act, Rules, terms and conditions of the policy, the breach of which does not make this respondent liable for any compensation to the appellant. It is further contended that the claim of the appellant under different heads is highly excessive and arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 25/F-7834 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and against whom?4
SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005
3. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the claim, the appellant examined herself as PW1 and also examined PW2 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR in Crime No.65 of 2001 of Police Station Jakranpally, Ex.A2 is certified copy of inquest panchanama, Ex.A3 is certified copy of post mortem examination report, Ex.A4 is certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A5 is photocopy of Registration Certificate, Ex.A6 is photocopy of driving license, Ex.A7 is salary certificate, Ex.A8 is photocopy of Insurance Cover Note, Ex.A9 is certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 and Ex.A10 is the certificate issued by the Councilor, Nizamabad dated 03.05.2004. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined but Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Ex.B1 is the copy of Insurance Certificate.
9. The Tribunal on considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
10. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in fact respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime vehicle has admitted 5 SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005 the accident, but only denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, as such the Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant to prove that the accident was caused by the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal also failed to consider the charge sheet filed in Crime No.65 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle stating that he has caused the accident by driving the jeep in a rash and negligent manner. Since the driver of the crime vehicle himself surrendered before the police and admitted guilt, the Tribunal disbelieved the evidence of the driver. Learned counsel prayed this Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Tribunal.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
13. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record, originally, the appellant filed the claim-petition claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of her husband.
14. To prove her case, the appellant examined herself as PW1 and also examined PW2. PW1 in her evidence reiterated the averments of the claim-petition. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident. 6
SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005 According to the appellant, PW2 is the eye witness to the accident. In his evidence, PW2 deposed that on 06.10.2001, he went to Padkal Tanda, one Sukklya who is related to him also came with him and they were standing on the side of the road, meanwhile, one jeep bearing No.AP-25/F-7834 came there at high speed, though they stopped the jeep, the driver did not stop and went ahead and dashed a person viz., Sukkya, as a result, he fell down, lost consciousness and received injuries and immediately they shifted the injured to the Government Hospital, Armoor. In his cross examination, PW2 stated that he went to the police station and did not give complaint, but the police recorded his statement and after 10 or 20 days, the police called him and one Sukklya and recorded their statements.
15. In Ex.A1/complaint dated 07.10.2001 given by one Banavath Sukkya, it is stated that he has seen the dead body of unknown person which was found near Jagadish Hotel on National Highway No.7 at Padkal Tanda and the body appears to have died in the accident with an unknown vehicle and the dead body was available at Padkal Tanda shivar on 07.10.2001. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the evidence of PW2 that he witnessed the accident on 06.10.2001 and shifting the injured to the Government Hospital, Armoor on the same day itself is false.
7
SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005
16. Ex.A1 FIR shows that on the complaint given by one Banavath Sukya, who is resident of Padkal, the Station House Officer, Jakranpally Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.65 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A2 Inquest Report clearly indicates that the deceased was found near the place of accident 2 or 3 days prior to the date of accident and he was found insane and moving in and around Padkal thanda and the appellant did not file ration card or any other evidence to prove that the deceased was her husband. Ex.A3 is the post mortem certificate which reveals that an unknown male person aged 30 years died due to the injuries received by him when an unknown vehicle dashed him. Ex.A4 charge sheet reveals that the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP- 25/F-7834 is responsible for the accident. Ex.A9/161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 which was recorded on 24.12.2001 i.e., more than two months after the date of accident reveals that the appellant went to III-Town police station to give complaint to the police as her husband did not return to the house and that she was asked to identify the photos and she identified one photo as that of her husband. Thereafter, she was informed that her husband died in an accident in the limits of Jakranpally Police Station. Immediately, she went to Jakranpally police station and came to know that her husband died on 07.10.2001.
8
SKS,J MACMA.No.3719_2005
17. In his evidence, PW2 deposed that the driver himself took injured and others in the jeep to the hospital immediately after the accident, whereas the contents of Ex.A1 complaint shows that an unknown dead body was found on the road near Jagadish Hotel on National Highway No.7 at Padkal Tanda. Therefore, there is contradictory evidence between PW2 and Ex.A1 complaint. Further, there is no proof to show that the appellant is the wife of the deceased. Though it is believed that the appellant is the wife of the deceased, there is contradictory evidence between PW2 and Ex.A1 complaint, therefore, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment of the Tribunal and that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2005 passed in O.P.No.144 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. SUJANA, J Date: 01.02.2024 rev