Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jakki Suryanarayana Raju vs Vadde Venakta Ramana Reddy And 2 ... on 20 February, 2023
1
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3445 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is unsuccessful petitioner in
M.V.O.P.No.551 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge (Fast Track
Court) Tanuku, and the respondents are the respondents in
the said case.
2. The parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are
arrayed in claim application.
3. The claimant has filed a Claim Petition under section
166 of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- in a Motor Vehicle accident for the injuries
received by him in a Motor Vehicle Accident, that occurred on
18.09.2008.
4. The claimant's case is that on 18.09.2008, he along
with Allada Durga Prasad who is road roller mechanic were
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
going on Hero Splender Plus Motor cycle bearing No. AP 16
BC 8733 for repairing the road roller. While they were
proceeding on Guntur Vijayawada by pass road at about 3:00
PM, they reached near old check post center situated near
Tadepalligudem center then the 1st respondent who is driving
APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 3768 of Guntur -II Depot
drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the
motor cycle of the petitioner from backside, resulting in the
petitioner and the pillion rider fell down. Petitioner sustained
severe injuries in the accident.
5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte.
6. The 2nd respondent filed a written statement and
pleaded that because of the negligence of the claimant only,
the accident is occurred and there is no rash and negligent
act by the driver of the APSRTC bus.
7. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement with a plea
that the motor cycle is insured with 3 rd respondent Insurance
company and the petitioner being the first party to the
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
Insurance Company is not entitled to claim compensation
because the policy covers 3rd party risk only.
8. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner/injured
sustained injuries due to the rash and
negligent driving of APSRTC Bus bearing
No. AP 9Z 3768 driven by its driver/1st
respondent?
2) Whether the petitioner/injured is
entitled to claim compensation, if so, to
what amount and from which of the
respondents?
3) To what relief?
9. On behalf of the petitioner 3 witnesses are examined
and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. on behalf of respondent two
witnesses are examined Ex.B1 and B2 were marked.
10. Now the point for consideration are:
1) Whether the accident is occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the 2nd respondent RTC
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
bus driven by the 1st respondent APSRTC bus bearing
No. AP 9Z 3768.
2) Whether the Order of the Tribunal needs any
interference and whether the claim petitioner is entitled
any compensation.
POINT Nos.1 & 2:
11. The claimant pleaded that on 18.09.2008 he along with
his friend A. Durga Prasad were going on a Hero Splender
Plus Motor cycle bearing No. AP 16 BC 8733 for repairing the
road roller. At that time one RTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 3768
driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed to the two-wheeler of the petitioner.
Since the petition is filed by the claimant under section 166 of
motor vehicles act it is incumbent on the part of the petitioner
to establish the 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 petitioner
received injuries in the said accident.
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
In order to prove the case of the petitioner examined
himself as a PW1 and relied on Ex.A1 to A16, the petitioner
reiterate the contends of claim application in his evidence
affidavit itself.
12. The learned counsel for appellant/claimant argued that
the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence PW2 who is
proceeding on a two-wheeler. As seen from the evidence of
PW2 there is a clear admission of PW2 that he is working
under petitioner, his evidence cannot be taken into
consideration for arriving conclusion of that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
RTC bus. As seen from Ex.A1 attested copy of the FIR, the
driver of the RTC bus has given a compliant to the police in
the Ex.A1 clearly stated at the time of accident the driver of
the RTC bus proceeding in a slow manner, at that time the
rider of the two wheeler, along with two other pillion rider
came on two wheeler drove the two wheeler in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed to the RTC bus Ex.A7 is the
Charge Sheet filed by the Police.
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
13. It was clearly stated in Ex.A7 that, because of the self-
negligence of the petitioner/claimant only, the accident is
occurred and charge sheet is filed in a criminal case against
the claimant herein, the claim application is filed under
section 166 of motor vehicles act, but not section 163(A) of
motor vehicle act the documentary evidence clearly proves
that because of the negligent driver of the claimant only the
accident is occurred.
14. The learned counsel for 3rd respondent admitted during
the course of argument before this Court that an amount is
paid to the claimant towards damages occurred to the vehicle
in a road accident and the policy covers 3rd party risk only.
and it is not a comprehensive policy, the learned counsel for
appellant argued that the Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A2
and A3 and Section 161 Cr.P.C., statements of witnesses
recorded by police in a criminal case. It is a settled Law that
the 161 Cr.PC., statements recorded by the police have no
evidence value in the eye of law.
MACMA.NO.3445 of 2012
15. Therefore, in view of the above reasons it is clear that
the accident is occurred due to self negligence of the claimant
only, and therefore, the claimant is not entitled any
compensation under section 166 of motor vehicles act,
accordingly point No.1 & 2 answered.
16. Therefore, in view of the above findings there is no need
to interfere with the said findings given by the Tribunal below
and there are no merits in the appeal filed by the claimant.
17. In the result, this appeal is dismissed without costs.
The order dt.08.08.2012 passed by the Tribunal in
MVOP.No.551 of 2011 is confirmed.
18. As sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
______________________________
V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J
Dated:20.02.2023.
KNN
