The Ap State Road Transport ... vs Vuppicherla Gireesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 853 AP

        HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO


                  M.A.C.M.A. No.585 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 12.03.2009 in

M.V.O.P.No.9 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,

Madanapalle, (for short "the tribunal"), the respondent-

Corporation has preferred the present appeal, questioning the

liability fastened on them.

2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as

arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimant has filed a petition under Section 166 (1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-

for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 23.07.2005.

4. The claimant's case is that while he was proceeding on his

motorcycle on 23.07.2005 at about 10.30 am., near

Vulavalavaripalli on the extreme left side of the road, the

APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 8592 was driven by its

driver, coming in the opposite direction and dashed him;

MACMA_585_2012

thereby, he fell. Immediately, he was shifted to the

Government Area Hospital, Madanapalle, and then to Hosmat

Hospital, Bangalore, where he was treated as an inpatient for

15 days and underwent two surgeries on his right leg. The

claimant's further case is that due to the accident, he

sustained a permanent disability, hence the claim petition.

5. The sole respondent-APSRTC Corporation filed its written

statement denying the manner of the accident and contended

that the driver of the bus observed the scooter, which was

proceeding in the opposite direction, riding rashly and

negligent with one hand and operating the mobile with

another hand; the driver of the bus had blown the horn,

applied sudden brakes, and stopped the bus; the scooterist,

after observing the bus all of sudden got agitated and fell on

the blacktop road and received blunt injuries without

contacting the bus. The accident occurred only due to the

rash and negligent manner of the claimant and sought for

dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed appropriate

issues. To prove the claim, on behalf of the claimant P.Ws.1

MACMA_585_2012

to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.20. On behalf of

the respondent, R.W.1 got examined, but no documentary

evidence was adduced.

7. After evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record,

the tribunal, while answering issue No.1, observed that the

accident resulted due to the rash and negligent act of the

driver of the crime bus of the respondent Corporation; while

answering issue No.2, awarded compensation Rs.1,68,600/-

with interest at 7.5% per annum.

8. Heard both the learned counsel.

9. During the hearing, learned counsel for the appellant/

respondent-Corporation contended that there is no negligence

on the part of the bus driver and ignored the contributory

negligence on the part of the scooter.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the

findings and observations of the tribunal.

11. Now the point for determination is whether the tribunal erred

in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the bus driver.

MACMA_585_2012

POINT:

a. At this stage, it is relevant to note that though the tribunal

awarded compensation under various heads, the appellant

has not disputed the quantum of compensation awarded by

the tribunal. In view of the same, this court views that the

findings of the tribunal regarding the quantum of

compensation need not be discussed again.

b. To prove the negligence on the part of the bus driver, the

claimant himself was examined as P.W.1. He testified about

the manner of the accident. In support of his case, the

claimant relied on Ex.A.1-copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A.3-copy of

the charge sheet. The respondent/appellant does not dispute

the claimant's case that he sustained injuries in the accident,

as established by the evidence on record. The

respondent/appellant contended that the accident occurred

due to the negligence of the claimant. To prove the manner of

the accident, the driver of the offending bus was examined as

R.W.1.

c. In the chief examination, R.W.1 testified that when the bus

reached Valetivaripalem, he observed the motorcyclist coming

MACMA_585_2012

in opposite direction rashly and negligently. On seeing the

motorcyclist, he applied the sudden brake and stopped the

bus and the motorcyclist suddenly got agitated and lost

control. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that the

charge sheet was filed against him in C.C. No.374 of 2005

under section 338 of I.P.C., he was facing the trial and the

C.C. is pending trial. He also admitted that he also stated

before the police that there is negligence on the part of the

claimant in riding the motorcycle with a single hand and he

was engaged on his cell phone at that time. If really, the

claimant proceeded with the motorcycle as stated in the

manner stated by R.W.1, certainly, R.W.1 would not have

kept quiet without lodging the complaint at the police station.

Even the respondent-Corporation has not chosen to examine

any person as an independent witness i.e., the persons who

travelled in the bus at the point of time.

d. The Respondent places no evidence to show that the contents

of the charge sheet are incorrect. In K.Rajani and V.

MACMA_585_2012

M.Satyanarayana Goud and others1, this Court observed

that:

"when the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in appropriate proceedings. If at all the findings of the police are found to be incorrect, it is for the insurance company to produce some evidence to show that the contents of the charge sheet are false".

e. In Bheemla Devi V. Himachal Road Transport

Corporation2 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows:

"It was necessary to be borne in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not be possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied".

f. Nothing on record suggests that the Investigating Officer filed

a charge sheet against the offending vehicle's driver without

conducting a proper investigation. It is also difficult to hold

2015 ACJ 797

2009 ACJ 1725 (S.C.)

MACMA_585_2012

that the Police Officer fabricated a case. In a proceeding under

the M.V. Act, where the procedure is a summary procedure,

there is no need to go by strict rules of pleading or evidence.

The document having some probative value, the genuineness

of which is not in doubt, can be looked into by the Tribunal

for getting preponderance of probable versions. The

preponderance of probabilities is the touchstone for

concluding rashness and negligence, as well as the accident's

mode and manner of happening. As such, it is by now well

settled that even F.I.R. or Police Papers, when made part of a

claim petition, can be looked into giving a finding in respect of

the happening of the accident. It is not the case of the

respondent-Corporation that negating the charge sheet relied

on by the claimant shows that the accident was witnessed by

several persons. The evidence of P.W.1 alleging the manner of

accident, which happened due to the rash and negligent

driving of the RTC bus driver. Though P.W.1 was subjected to

lengthy cross-examination, nothing was elicited even to

remotely indicate that he was to some extent negligent for

happening of the accident. Hence, I see no reason to

MACMA_585_2012

disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1. The respondents have not

disputed the injuries sustained in the accident.

g. Furthermore, Ex.A.1, certified copy of F.I.R., shows that the

accident occurred on 23.07.2005 at 10.30 a.m., there is no

much delay in giving report about the accident. In the report

all the particulars relating to the accident were given

including the registration of the offending vehicle. The

contents of the F.I.R. also corroborate the version of the

claimant. The de-facto complainant has no reason to give

false complaint against the offending bus driver. Considering

the evidence of P.W.1, this court views that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

offending bus driver.

h. In view of the foregoing discussion regarding the negligent

driving of the RTC bus driver, I do not find any error in the

findings of the tribunal. The appellant has not disputed the

quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal, hence

this court views that the tribunal awarded just and

reasonable compensation to the claimant and the appeal

deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the point is answered.

MACMA_585_2012

12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed without costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall

stand closed.

___________________________ T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J Dt.14.02.2023 BV