Pippala Mahalakshmiand 4 Others vs Fadyala Seetharamanjaneyulu And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1248 AP

                                 1         MACMA.NO.458 of 2012




     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

                M.A.C.M.A.No.458 of 2012



JUDGMENT:

The appellants are claimants in MVOP.No.139 of

2010 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

XI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Gudivada,

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 the claim application.

3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under

section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act for seeking

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of Pippalla

Nancharaiah, in a motor vehicle accident, that occurred

on 17.08.2007.

4. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners 1

to 3 are children and petitioners 4 and 5 are parents of 2 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

the deceased Pippalla Nancharaiah, and deceased used

to do cultivation of lands by taking lands of others on

lease and also doing paddy commission business and

used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month, because of the death

of the Pippalla Nancharaiah, the petitioners lost the

financial earnings of the deceased. The petitioners

further pleaded that on 17.08.2007 when the deceased

was walking behind the tractor bearing No.AP 16 AS

4002 belonging to his wife 2nd respondent, in the fields of

3rd party where the 1st respondent tried to cross the Bode

situated on the side of Donka while driving in a rash and

negligent manner in high speed, the tractor turned turtle

and fell on the deceased Pippalla Nancharaiah, who was

walking behind the tractor. The petitioners further

pleaded that the 1st respondent was able to escape by

jumping from the tractor and the deceased was taken to

Government Hospital, Avanigadda where he was declared 3 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

as a dead. The relationship of the petitioners with the

deceased is not a dispute. It was pleaded by the

Insurance Company that no accident is happened and

the death of the deceased in a road accident is in dispute.

Therefore, the burden is on the claimants to prove the

manner of the accident.

5. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte.

6. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company filed the

counter contending that the deceased himself had driven

the tractor from other village and came down to

Avanigadda and while going to plough the fields, accident

was occurred, due to which he himself died in the

accident for his own negligence without having any valid

license. The deceased does not come under the purview

of third party.

4 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

AS 4002 by its driver 1st respondent?

2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner relied on the

evidence of PW1 to PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. 3rd

respondent was examined as RW1 and Ex.B1 to B5

were marked on behalf of respondents.

9. Now the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the Order of the learned Tribunal

needs any interference?

5 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

2) Whether the appellants/claimants are entitled

the compensation as claimed for?

POINT No.1 & 2:

10. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the

petitioners relied on the evidence of the PW-1 to 3 this

petition is filed U/s 163-A of Motor Vehicle Act.

11. PW1 is the 5th petitioner, he is none other than the

father of the deceased he reiterated the contents of the

petition in his evidence affidavit as PW1. In cross-

examination he admits that the driver i.e., 1st respondent

as well as his deceased son went on tractor to Modumudi

for ploughing the land. He further admits he do not know

how the tractor met with accident and he has not

witnessed the accident, he further admits in the charge

sheet it was mentioned that his son and driver was

proceeding on the tractor at the time of accident. As per 6 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

the charge sheet Ex.A4 i.e., as per the own document

filed by the petitioners the deceased was proceeding on

the a tractor at the time of alleged accident.

12. PW2 who is a relative of the deceased admitted in

his evidence in cross-examination that the deceased is

the brother-in-law by relation and he is not a direct

witness to the accident on receipt of information only he

had given a report to the police.

13. PW3 who is claimed to be eye witness to the

accident Ex.B1 is marked through him in cross-

examination. He admits in cross-examination that he

deposed in Magistrate Court, Avanigaddda concerning

this accident and Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the said

deposition in criminal case PW3 deposed in a criminal

case. Ex.B1 is certified copy of the said deposition. As per

EX.B1, he deposed in the said case that he observed one

tractor turned turtle and he observed the same from a far 7 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

distance and immediately he rushed there and found

Nancharaiah underneath side of the tractor with injuries.

He was turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in

the criminal case.

14. As per the case of the petitioners and as per the

petition averments, on 17.08.2007 when the deceased

was walking behind the tractor bearing No.AP 16 AS

4002 belonging to his wife 1st respondent, tried to cross

the Bode situated on the side of the Donka, while driving

in a rash and negligent manner in high speed the tractor

turned turtle and fell on the deceased Pippalla

Nancharaiah who was walking behind the tractor, But as

per the own admissions of PW1 who is none other than

the father of PW1, by the time of accident his deceased

son was proceeding on a tractor along with the driver. In

Ex.A4 charge sheet filed by the police i.e., in the own

document filed by the petitioners, it was mentioned that 8 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

the deceased and the driver were on the tractor at the

time of accident. As per the own admissions of PW2 in

cross examination, he is not an eye witness to the

accident Ex.B1 is marked through PW1. As per Ex.B1,

PW3 stated in C.C. No. 284/2007 that he did not know

the accused person and he was working in a fields at

about 03:00 pm he was observed one tractor turned

turtle and he observed the same from a far distance and

he rushed to the place and found Nancharaiah

underneath the side of the tractor with injuries. In the

charge sheet filed by the police Ex.A4 it was stated the

deceased who is sitting behind the accused on a tractor

fell down. It is not the case of the claimants that the

driver of the tractor drove the tractor in a negligent

manner and dashed the deceased.

15. Another important point is in Ex.A3 a Motor Vehicle

inspector's Report in Column No.8., it was mentioned 9 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

that there was no damage to the vehicle. If the tractor

turned turtle really, certainly there must be some

damage to the tractor. The averments in the petition are

not supported by Ex.A4 charge sheet averments with

regard to the manner of the accident. Therefore the

manner of the accident as stated by the petitioners is not

at all supported by their own document Ex.A4 and chief

affidavits of PW 1 to 3. Another important point is that

the tractor owner is none other than the wife of the

deceased, she was shown as 2nd respondent in this case

and the claimants 1 to 3 are the children of the deceased

and the claimants 4 and 5 are the parents of the

deceased.

16. Another important point is that the 2nd respondent

obtained policy under farmer package policy which is to

be used for agriculture operations. But as per the

material on record, the tractor was given for hire to one 10 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

Kammili Anjaneyulu for ploughing the fields and this

vehicle was used for commercial purpose and the

deceased was travelling as an unauthorized passenger.

Since the manner of accident is highly doubtful, the

evidence available on record has to the scrutinized with

due care and caution. The evidence on record is not

supporting with the petition averments about the manner

of the accident, here the manner of the accident is highly

doubtful. No doubt the claim application is filed U/s 163-

A of Motor Vehicle Act, the alleged participation of the

tractor in the alleged accident is highly doubtful.

17. The learned counsel for claimants relied on a

decision reported in D.Krishnaveni and others v. Mohd.

Sikander and another1, Bhimrao Shamrao Hawaldar

v. Ranjana Sharad Hawaldar2. herein the instant case

1 2009 (6) ALT 620 (S.B.)

2 2008 (4) MhLJ 673 11 MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

the manner of the accident is highly doubtful and the

averments of the petition filed by the claimants is not

supporting their own document i.e., Ex.A4 charge sheet.

The learned counsel for the claimants relied on a

decision in Ravi v. Badrinarayana and others3. herein

the present case this Court has clearly stated above that

the manner of the accident is highly doubtful whether

there is a delay in lodging the FIR is not in issue in this

case.

18. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, the

petitioners are not entitled any claim, the Tribunal after

giving cogent reasons gave finding that the claimants are

not entitled any compensation. Therefore, there is no

need to interfere with the finding given by the Tribunal.

There are no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly,

the points are answered.

3 (2011) 4 SCC 693
                                12       MACMA.NO.458 of 2012

19. In the result this appeal is dismissed by confirming

the order dated 05.01.2012 in MVOP.No.139 of 2010 on

the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XI Addl.

District & Sessions Judge, Krishna, at Gudivada,

As sequel, Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

in this appeal shall stand closed.

______________________________ V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J

Date: 03.03.2023 KNN