Telangana High Court
Smt.Rafiya vs Sri Kola Ganapathi on 1 February, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3719 of 2005
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the dismissal of
O.P.No.144 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(District Judge), Nizamabad (for short 'The Tribunal') vide judgment
and decree, dated 17.10.2005, the appellant preferred the present
appeal.
2. The appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Lakhs only) for the death of the deceased
viz., Shafiq in the road accident.
3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the jeep and respondent No.2 is
the Insurer of the said Jeep.
4. The facts of the case are that as usual the deceased Shafiq went
to sell the bread in the surrounding villages of Nizamabad Town. As
he did not return to the house, his wife/appellant went to III-Town
Police Station, Nizamabad to file a complaint about missing of her
husband and then the police asked her to go through some photos
which were displayed on the board at the police station. After going
through the photos, the appellant identified one of the photos as that
of her husband and the police informed her that her husband died in
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
a motor vehicle accident which occurred in the limits of Jakranpally
Police Station. Immediately, the appellant rushed to the Police
Station, Jakranpally and on enquiry, she came to know that on
07.10.2001 at about 05.00 a.m., a jeep bearing No.AP-25/F-7834
proceeding towards Dichpally from Armoor side driven by its driver in
a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her husband and ran
over him, due to which he died on the spot. Prior to the accident, the
deceased was aged 30 years, he was hale and healthy and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month by selling bread on commission and was
contributing his earnings to the appellant. On account of the
accident, the life of the deceased was shortened and the appellant is
put to untold misery, mental shock and agony, as such she filed O.P.
against respondent Nos.1 and 2 claiming compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/-.
5. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the jeep, filed written
statement denying the averments of the petition and the manner of the
accident. It is further contended that the alleged accident was not due
to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and that the
driver of the jeep was having valid driving license at the material time
of accident and the vehicle was roadworthy to ply. It is further
contended that his vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-
Insurance Company and if the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
the appellant is entitled for any compensation, the same may be
awarded against respondent No.2 and prayed to dismiss the claim-
petition against him.
6. Respondent No.2 filed a written statement denying the
averments of the petition, manner of accident, age, occupation and
income of the deceased and further denied that the jeep was driven by
its driver in a rash and negligent manner and also denied the
involvement of the deceased in the alleged accident. It is further
contended that respondent No.1 had colluded with the appellant with
the help of police and might have got involved the jeep and that the
insured has not reported the matter of accident to respondent No.2-
Insurance Company. It is further contended that the liability of this
respondent is governed by the provisions of M.V. Act and Workmen's
Compensation Act, Rules, terms and conditions of the policy, the
breach of which does not make this respondent liable for any
compensation to the appellant. It is further contended that the claim
of the appellant under different heads is highly excessive and arbitrary
and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:
1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent
driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 25/F-7834 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what just amount and against whom?
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
3. To what relief?
8. In order to prove the claim, the appellant examined herself as
PW1 and also examined PW2 on her behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to
A10. Ex.A1 is certified copy of FIR in Crime No.65 of 2001 of Police
Station Jakranpally, Ex.A2 is certified copy of inquest panchanama,
Ex.A3 is certified copy of post mortem examination report, Ex.A4 is
certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A5 is photocopy of Registration
Certificate, Ex.A6 is photocopy of driving license, Ex.A7 is salary
certificate, Ex.A8 is photocopy of Insurance Cover Note, Ex.A9 is
certified copy of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 and Ex.A10 is the
certificate issued by the Councilor, Nizamabad dated 03.05.2004. On
behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined but Ex.B1 is
marked on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Ex.B1 is
the copy of Insurance Certificate.
9. The Tribunal on considering the entire evidence, both oral and
documentary has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the
same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
10. Heard Sri K. Raghuveer Reddy, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant as well as learned Standing counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that in fact
respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime vehicle has admitted
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
the accident, but only denied the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the crime vehicle, as such the Tribunal ought to have
accepted the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant to prove that
the accident was caused by the driver of the vehicle. Learned counsel
further submitted that the Tribunal also failed to consider the charge
sheet filed in Crime No.65 of 2001 for the offence punishable under
Section 304-A of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle stating
that he has caused the accident by driving the jeep in a rash and
negligent manner. Since the driver of the crime vehicle himself
surrendered before the police and admitted guilt, the Tribunal
disbelieved the evidence of the driver. Learned counsel prayed this
Court to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 17.10.2005 passed by the Tribunal.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company would submit that there is no illegality or
infirmity in the order of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
13. Having regard to the rival submissions and material on record,
originally, the appellant filed the claim-petition claiming compensation
of Rs.8,00,000/- for the death of her husband.
14. To prove her case, the appellant examined herself as PW1 and
also examined PW2. PW1 in her evidence reiterated the averments of
the claim-petition. PW1 is not an eye witness to the accident.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
According to the appellant, PW2 is the eye witness to the accident. In
his evidence, PW2 deposed that on 06.10.2001, he went to Padkal
Tanda, one Sukklya who is related to him also came with him and
they were standing on the side of the road, meanwhile, one jeep
bearing No.AP-25/F-7834 came there at high speed, though they
stopped the jeep, the driver did not stop and went ahead and dashed a
person viz., Sukkya, as a result, he fell down, lost consciousness and
received injuries and immediately they shifted the injured to the
Government Hospital, Armoor. In his cross examination, PW2 stated
that he went to the police station and did not give complaint, but the
police recorded his statement and after 10 or 20 days, the police called
him and one Sukklya and recorded their statements.
15. In Ex.A1/complaint dated 07.10.2001 given by one Banavath
Sukkya, it is stated that he has seen the dead body of unknown
person which was found near Jagadish Hotel on National Highway
No.7 at Padkal Tanda and the body appears to have died in the
accident with an unknown vehicle and the dead body was available at
Padkal Tanda shivar on 07.10.2001. Therefore, the Tribunal found
that the evidence of PW2 that he witnessed the accident on
06.10.2001 and shifting the injured to the Government Hospital,
Armoor on the same day itself is false.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
16. Ex.A1 FIR shows that on the complaint given by one Banavath
Sukya, who is resident of Padkal, the Station House Officer,
Jakranpally Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.65 of
2001 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. Ex.A2
Inquest Report clearly indicates that the deceased was found near the
place of accident 2 or 3 days prior to the date of accident and he was
found insane and moving in and around Padkal thanda and the
appellant did not file ration card or any other evidence to prove that
the deceased was her husband. Ex.A3 is the post mortem certificate
which reveals that an unknown male person aged 30 years died due to
the injuries received by him when an unknown vehicle dashed him.
Ex.A4 charge sheet reveals that the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-
25/F-7834 is responsible for the accident. Ex.A9/161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW1 which was recorded on 24.12.2001 i.e., more than
two months after the date of accident reveals that the appellant went
to III-Town police station to give complaint to the police as her
husband did not return to the house and that she was asked to
identify the photos and she identified one photo as that of her
husband. Thereafter, she was informed that her husband died in an
accident in the limits of Jakranpally Police Station. Immediately, she
went to Jakranpally police station and came to know that her
husband died on 07.10.2001.
SKS,J
MACMA.No.3719_2005
17. In his evidence, PW2 deposed that the driver himself took
injured and others in the jeep to the hospital immediately after the
accident, whereas the contents of Ex.A1 complaint shows that an
unknown dead body was found on the road near Jagadish Hotel on
National Highway No.7 at Padkal Tanda. Therefore, there is
contradictory evidence between PW2 and Ex.A1 complaint. Further,
there is no proof to show that the appellant is the wife of the deceased.
Though it is believed that the appellant is the wife of the deceased,
there is contradictory evidence between PW2 and Ex.A1 complaint,
therefore, I find that there is no infirmity or illegality in the Judgment
of the Tribunal and that there are no merits in the appeal and the
same is liable to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 17.10.2005 passed in O.P.No.144 of 2002
by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K. SUJANA, J
Date: 01.02.2024
rev
