Union Of India And Another vs Smt. Swarn Kaur And 5 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 688 Tel

Telangana High Court

Union Of India And Another vs Smt. Swarn Kaur And 5 Others on 19 February, 2024

         THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.1806 of 2008

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Union of India, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 12.12.2006 in O.P.No.251 of 2004 passed by the

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

City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. The respondents herein/claimants filed the aforesaid O.P.

claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of one

Mr. Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'). The appellants

herein, who are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid claim petition,

have filed the present appeal questioning the grant of compensation by

the Tribunal to the claimants.

3. The case of the claimants is that on 12.07.2004, while the

deceased was driving the Scooter bearing No.AP 10 AB 7707 near

Karkhana, Secunderabad, the Military Truck bearing No.03D 51022K,

took a left turn and hit the Scooter which was being driven by the

deceased, due to which, the deceased came under the Military vehicle

and the scooter fell outside the road. The co-driver of the Military

vehicle shouted about the deceased falling under the Military vehicle

and in confusion, the driver had driven the Military vehicle in the

reverse direction and ran over the deceased, causing his death.

2 KS,J MACMA_1806_2008

4. After considering the evidence on record, both oral and

documentary, vide the impugned Award, the Tribunal awarded the

compensation of Rs.5,43,333/- with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date

of petition till deposit, payable to the claimants by respondent No.1 to 3

therein.

5. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of

the appellants would submit that in the circumstances of the accident,

it cannot be said that the driver is at fault. When the person himself

had fallen and come under the vehicle, the question of driving the

Military vehicle in a rash and negligent manner does not arise.

Therefore, according to learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, the

Tribunal erred in holding that the appellants are liable to pay the

compensation.

6. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.2, as discussed by the

Tribunal, that the Military vehicle was overtaking the Scooter. When

the vehicle had hit the Scooter, the Scooter fell on the road and the

deceased came under the wheels of the Military vehicle. Then, at the

instance of the co-driver, the driver of the Military vehicle had driven

the Truck in reverse direction in a rash and negligent manner at high

speed, resulting in running over the deceased. As a result, the

deceased succumbed to injuries and died on the spot.

7. In the said circumstances of the driver taking the vehicle in

reverse direction, even without noticing the deceased, it can only be 3 KS,J MACMA_1806_2008

concluded that the driver was negligent while driving the Military Truck

and his negligence caused the death of the deceased.

8. I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Tribunal and

thus, the appeal fails.

9. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed confirming the order and

Decree dated 12.12.2006 in O.P.No.251 of 2004 passed by the

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

City Civil Court, Secunderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall

stand closed.

____________________ K. SURENDER,J Date: 19.02.2024 GSP