Telangana High Court

Union Of India , Rep. By Its ... vs Pinky Rani Dhar And 3 Others on 3 August, 2022

Bench: G Sri Devi

              HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.2640 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles

Act, aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 23.06.2006

passed in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman,

Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

claiming compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the death of one

Jantu Dhar (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who

died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on

12.08.2000 at about 10.30 p.m., while the deceased was coming

from Kavadiguda on his motor bike No.AP 9 S 6741 to his

residence at Raghavendra Nagar, Sainikpuri and when he

reached near Jubilee Bus Stand in front of Road of Chief

Engineer (R & D), Secunderabad Office, a Matador Van bearing

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

No.85 B 4085 2H being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motor cycle of

the deceased, due to which the deceased sustained injuries and

he was succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in

Apollo Hospital, Vikrampuri, on 15.08.2000. On a complaint,

P.S. Marredpally, registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2000

against the driver of the Matador Van i.e., the 1st respondent. It

is also stated that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the

time of accident and earning Rs.10,000/- per month by running

a mechanic shop of two wheelers at Kavadiguda under the name

and style of Sai Auto Works. Due to sudden demise of the

deceased, the claimants are put to lot of mental shock and

agonly and they lost their source of income. Respondents 1 and

2 are the owners and the 3rd respondent is the driver of the

offending vehicle, as such, they are jointly and severally liable

to pay the compensation.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the

allegations made in the claim-petition. It is also contended that

the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving

of the 3rd respondent but it was due to the negligence of the

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

deceased and the criminal case registered against the 3rd

respondent was dismissed. It is also denied the age, income and

avocation f the deceased. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to

dismiss the claim-petition.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether the deceased Jantu Dhat met with fatal accident due to collision between motor bike bearing No.AP 9 S 6741 and Matador Van bearing No.85 B 4085 2H?

2. Whether the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of Matador Van bearing No.85 B 4085 2 H?

3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

4. To what relief?

6. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents,

R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident took

place due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent and

accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.4,57,000/- with interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to be paid by the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and

severally. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, respondents

1 and 2, have filed the present appeal.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. It is submitted by the learned Assistant Solicitor General

of India that the Tribunal erred in not considering the judgment

of the Criminal Court dated 13.06.2001 in C.C.No.960 of 2000

acquitting the 3rd respondent. It is further submitted that the

Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.3-eye witness

to the accident and P.W.5-contable, who reached the accident

spot immediately and they have specifically deposed that motor

cycle hit the van.

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

10. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that

the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no

interference by this Court.

11. Insofar as the negligence is concerned, a perusal of the

impugned order would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue

Nos.1 and 2 as to whether the deceased met with accident due

to collision between motor cycle and Matadar Van and whether

the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of

matador Van bearing No.85B 4085 2 H, to which the Tribunal

after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A1-

F.I.R. and Ex.A4-charge sheet, has categorically observed that

the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the

3rd respondent. The findings of the Tribunal in paragraph

Nos.10 to 13 of the impugned order are necessary to be

reproduced herein for better appreciation of the matter.

"10. In support of her version, an eye witness to the accident has been examined as P.W.2 who deposed that on 12.08.2000 at about 10.00 PM when he was engaged in discussion with other auto drivers on the other side of road running to Bowenpally from Secunderabad and opposite to Jubilee Bus Stand, they saw an accident

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

occurred at about 10.30 P.M. In the beginning they saw a person having his Suzuki motor cycle on the road in front of Chief Engineer (R&D), Secunderabad Office and while he was crossing the C.E. (R&D) gate a Matador Van came in a rash and negligent manner and took left turn and dashed the motor cycle, due to which, the rider of motor cycle fell down and thereafter the driver of Van parked the vehicle on the left side of the road and by that they reached the spot, they find a person along with traffic divider and opposite to C.E. (R&D) with head injuries in the right side and multiple injuries all over the body and in unconscious state. Meanwhile, one woman and a man got down from the van and escaped from the scene. He further deposed that on their demand for the particulars of the driver, he revealed his name as Samee and working as driver in G.E. M.E.S., Kanchanbagh, Hyderabad. They shifted the injured to Gandhi Hospital. While they were transporting the injured to hospital, the driver of Matador Van ran away by leaving the crime vehicle.

With the help of belongings of injured, they came to know his name as Jantudhar and informed his family members. He further deposed that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent.

11. Contrary to their evidence, R.W.1 who is 3rd respondent has been examined. He categorically deposed that he was driving the Matador Van belonging to respondent No.1. On 13.08.2000 at about 10.30 PM,

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

it was proceeding from the office of Garrison Engineer Project towards their office at Kanchanbagh. He further stated that G.E. Project office is opposite to Jubilee Bus Station and he came out of the said office and was taking 'U' turn to go towards Hyderabad and the vehicle was moving slowly. He further deposed that while taking turn the motorcyclist, who was coming from Secunderabad side, dashed on the rear right side of the van and on hearing the sound, he stopped the vehicle and saw the motor cyclist who fell down and the right side tail lamp of the van was broken and thereafter police came and shifted the deceased to Gandhi Hospital. He further deposed that the accident occurred not due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3.

12. In view of documentary evidence in Ex.A1-C.C. of F.I.R. and Ex.A4-C.C. of charge sheet coupled with oral testimony of P.W.2, the evidence of R.W.1 cannot be given much weight as he is the employee of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and to escape departmental enquiry and other consequences he deposed contrary to the version as has been elicited from Ex.A1-F.I.R. and Ex.A4-charge sheet and the oral evidence of eye witness P.W.2. Hence, his evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

13. Having regard to the oral testimony of witnesses P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1-F.I.R. and Ex.A4-charge sheet, it is noticed that

GSD, J Macma_2640_2006

the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3."

12. Apart from that, the acquittal in criminal case does not

make any impact in claiming the compensation under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Burden of proof in both the cases

is different. Here, the burden of proof discharged by the

claimants is only preponderance of the evidence. From the

above, it is clear that the Tribunal has rightly held that the

accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the 3rd

respondent. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the

said finding.

13. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned,