M/S.National Insurance Company ... vs B.Chinna Papamma Chinna Papa 5 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 881 AP

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
                M.A.C.M.A.No.1253 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the 2nd respondent Insurance

Company in M.V.O.P.No.101 of 2006 on the file of I Addl.

District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal Chittoor, and the respondents are the claimants

and R1 and R3 in the said case.

2. The parties in the appeal will be referred as they are

arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claimants filed a claim petition under section

166 of Motor Vehicle Act against the respondent for

seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- towards

compensation for death deceased S. Bhaskar Reddy in

Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 09.10.2005 at 4:30

pm.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

4. The case of the claimants is that on 09.10.2005 at

about 4:30 pm, the driver of VTS bus bearing No. AP 03 U

7617 while proceedings towards Chittoor plying from

Tiruttani to Palamaner, drove the Vehicle in a rash and

negligent manner and at high speed and dashed against

APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 2858 and that the

deceased was the driver of the RTC bus and on seeing the

bus coming from opposite direction, the deceased applied

a brake and stopped the vehicle on the left side of road

margin, and the driver of the opposite bus hit the RTC bus

due to which both the vehicles were badly damaged and

that the deceased being the driver of RTC bus succumbed

to the injuries and died on the spot itself, the claimant

further pleaded that 1st petitioner is the wife of deceased

and PW2 to PW4 are her children and they are depending

upon the earnings of the deceased.

5. The 1st respondent has remained ex parte.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

6. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed a

written statement and pleaded that due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the RTC only the accident

occurred.

The 3rd respondent filed a written statement denying

the allegations mentioned in the petition and pleaded that

the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of the bus belonging to respondent No.1.

7. Based on the above pleadings the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

i) Whether the accident in question was

caused due to the rash and negligent

driving of the drive of the bus bearing No.

AP 03 U 7617 or the deceased B. Bhaskar

Reddy himself while driving the bus

bearing No. AP 10 Z 2858.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for any

compensation? If so, to what amount? and

from whom?

8. On behalf of the Petitioners, PW1 and PW2 are

examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of

respondents, RW1 and RW2 are examined and marked

Exs.B1 to B3.

9. Now the points for consideration are:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the VTS bus bearing No. AP 03 U 7617

belongs to 1st respondent.

2) Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any

interference and the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is just and reasonable.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

Point No.1:

10. The learned counsel for Insurance Company argued

that due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus

driver only, the accident took place. Hence the petition

filed by the petitioners under section 166 of Motor Vehicle

Act, it is incumbent on the part of the petitioners to

established identity of the vehicle involved in the accident

and the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by its driver and the

deceased sustained severe injuries at spot itself in the road

accident.

11. In order to prove the case of the claimants the 1st

petitioner examined herself as PW1 and relied on Ex.A1 to

A9 the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased is

not at all disputed by other side, the PW1 reiterated the

contention of petition in her evidence affidavit before the

Tribunal below.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

12. In cross-examination PW1 denied the suggestion that

due to negligence of driver of the RTC bus, the accident

occurred and the deceased received injuries and died at

spot itself,

As seen from Ex. A1 First Information Report and

Ex.A4 Certified copy of Charge Sheet, the Investigating

Officer collected the evidence and after making himself

sure about the Complicity of the driver of the VTS bus

bearing No. AP 03 U 7617, charge sheeted him for the

evidence punishable under section 304 -A IPC.

13. It was mentioned in the charge sheet Ex. A4 that due

to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the VTS

bus bearing No. AP 03 U 7617, the accident is occurred

and the said driver dashed to the RTC bus in a negligent

manner and in a rash manner and due to that the driver

of the RTC bus received severe injuries and died at spot

itself.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

14. The respondent did not deny the genuineness of Ex.

A2 certified copy of PM report, Ex.A3 certified copy of

inquest report, PW2 is a passenger travelling in the

offending vehicle at the time of accident his evidence also

clearly supports to prove that the accident is occurred due

to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver

of the Private bus.

Considering the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.

A1 and A4 certified copy of the charge sheet, it can be said

that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of the VPT bus bearing No. AP 03 U

7617 and deceased sustained injuries and died at spot

itself.

15. This Court therefore, hold that petitioners have

established the identity of the vehicle involved in the

accident is driver of the VPT Private bus bearing No. AP 03

U 7617 and the accident is outcome of rash and negligent MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

driving of the driver of the private bus bearing No. AP 03

U 7617. Therefore, the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

POINT NO.2


         1)      Basing the material on record the

     Tribunal     granted    the   compensation       of

Rs.9,01,890/- the petitioners/claimants claimed

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Basing on the

evidence of PW3, who is the Assistant Manager

APSRTC and considering material on record and

basing on the earnings of the deceased, since he

is permanent driver in APSRTC, the Tribunal

rightly came to conclusion for granting

compensation of Rs.9,01,890/- to the petitioners,

towards compensation.

16. The Insurance Company has not disputed about the

quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

pleaded that the accident is occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus only.

This Court has clearly stated above the accident is

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the Private bus only.

17. The learned counsel for Insurance Company argued

that the in Ex.B2 Certified copy of calendar and judgment

in CC No.7/2006, criminal Court discussed about the

evidence of PW2 in that case.

The learned Magistrate clearly stated in Ex.B2 that

PW2 who is the Conductor of RTC bus stated in his

evidence that at the time of accident, the RTC bus driver

is proceeding in a speed manner, But hear the entire

deposition of PW2 is the certified copy of deposition of

Conductor of RTC Bus is not at all filed.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

18. It was clearly stated in Ex.B2 that the evidence of

prosecution witnesses is not supporting the case of the

prosecution and that the learned Magistrate Acquitted the

accused driver of the private bus. It is a settled Law the

judgment given by the criminal court in a criminal case is

not finding on the Tribunal.

19. Therefore, this Court as unable to accept the

contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company

that the accident is occurred due to rash and negligent

driver of the deceased only.

20. In view of the above findings this Court come to

conclusion that there is no illegality in the Order passed

by the Tribunal in its Order dated 08.06.2011 in

M.V.O.P.No.101 of 2006 on the file of I Addl. District

Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

Chittoor.

MACMA.NO.1253 of 2012

21. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without costs.

The order dt.08.06.2011 passed by the Tribunal in

MVOP.No.101 of 2009 is confirmed.

22. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this

appeal shall stand closed.

_______________________________________

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Dated:15.02.2023.

KNN