Telangana High Court
Smt. K. Saroja And 4 Ors vs Kousisngh Begum And 2 Ors on 13 March, 2024
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
M.A.C.M.A No.259 OF 2012
Between:
K.Saroja and others ... Appellants
And
Shaik Jani Miya and another ..Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 13.03.2024
Submitted for approval.
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see the Yes/No
Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment may
be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
Wish to see their fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ M.A.C.M.A No.259 of 2012
% Dated 13.03.2024
# K.Saroja and others ... Appellant
And
$ Shaik Jani Miya and another ..Respondents
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S.Surender Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent: Sri V.Samba Siva Rao for R3
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Civil Appeal No.3021 of 2000
(arising out of SLP (C) NO.17493 of 1998)
3
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No. 259 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the dismissal of claim
petition filed by the appellants herein, which claim petition was
filed for the reason of death of the son of the 1st petitioner, by
order in O.P.No.734 of 2001 dated 08.11.2006 passed by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District
Judge (FTC), ASifabad.
2. Briefly, the case of the claimants is that the 1st respondent's
husband was owner-cum-driver of his jeep. The deceased was
also working as driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-1/6642. On
25.04.1999, some unknown persons engaged the jeep to go to
Vemulawada from Ramakrishnapur. Accordingly, the deceased
took them in the said jeep. The owner also accompanied the
deceased in the jeep. On the intervening night of 26/27th April,
1999, while returning from Vemulavada, some unknown persons
stopped the vehicle, dragged both the owner of the vehicle and
the deceased driver and attacked them with weapons and killed
them. The dead bodies were found at the distance of 230 yards
from the main road, around 5.00 p.m on 27.04.1999 and
accordingly police were informed. A crime was registered by the
Boinpally Police station of Karimnagar District for the offences
under Sections 302 and 201 IPC on 28.04.1999. Thereafter, the
police filed final report on 28.02.2002 stating that the offenders
could not be detected. In the said final report, it was stated that
the Sarpanch of Venkatraopalli Village lodged complaint that
money of Rs.70,000/- was stolen from the jeep by unknown
offenders by killing the driver and owner of the jeep. During
investigation, the police came to know that the jeep was found
abandoned on 06.05.1999 in Hyderabad within Sanathnagar
Police Station limits. The said jeep was produced before the VI
Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Though efforts were made to
trace out the culprits who have perpetrated the crime of killing
two persons, the same could not be detected and case was
closed.
3. The claimants approached the MACT claiming
compensation from the insurer of the jeep which was driven by
the deceased. The tribunal found that death occurred within the
limits of Boinpally Police Station in Karimnagar District and there
was no proof that deaths occurred during the trip to Vemulavada.
In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that the death of the
deceased occurred while driving the vehicle. Accordingly,
dismissed the claim.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that it is admitted that both the driver and the owner had gone in
the jeep which was engaged by unknown persons. In the said
circumstances, the murder was committed for the purpose
stealing the vehicle, which was incidental to the object of stealing
the vehicle. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Rita Devi v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd in Civil
Appeal No.3021 of 2000 (arising out of SLP (C) NO.17493 of
1998) held that auto rickshaw was stolen and the murder was
incidental to the stealing of the auto rickshaw. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances, the death of the deceased was caused
in the process of committing theft of auto rickshaw. Accordingly,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted compensation to the
claimants.
5. On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the insurance
company that the findings of the Tribunal are in accordance with
the circumstances and probability. There is no nexus that is
shown in between the death of the deceased and also the
commission of theft of the jeep. Accordingly, the judgment of the
Tribunal is proper and requires no interference.
6. The dead bodies of both the deceased were found on
28.04.1999. Nearly after ten days on 06.05.1999, the vehicle was
traced in Sanathnagar area of Hyderabad city. The place where
the dead bodies were found and where the vehicle was found is at
a distance of 160 kms. P.W.1, who is the mother was examined to
state that during the course of his driving, the deceased was
murdered and jeep was subjected to theft. However, during the
course of her cross-examination, she stated that the other
deceased, who is the owner came to her house without getting
the jeep and he took her deceased son to his house. Thereafter,
she has seen dead body of her deceased son and Ghouse Pasha
at the place of the accident. P.W.2, who is the brother-in-law of
the owner of jeep Ghouse Pasha stated that the deceased used to
run the vehicle as he was engaged as a driver and was paid
salary of Rs.1,800/- per month. On coming to know about the
deaths, he went to the place where the dead bodies were found.
Both the witnesses, who are examined on behalf of the claimants
did not state that both the deceased had boarded the jeep and
drove away. There is no witness to state that they have seen both
the deceased driving away in the jeep. In the absence of such
evidence of there being no witnesses, who have seen the deceased
going in the jeep along with other passengers, the entire case of
the claimants that some people must have engaged the jeep and
they must have killed the deceased while trying to commit theft is
all an assumption. In the absence of any evidence to show that
both the deceased were last seen in the jeep, it cannot be said
that murders were committed for the purpose of stealing the jeep.
If at all, the intention was to steal the jeep, either the jeep would
have been stolen or parts would have been separated and sold,
but nothing of that sort happened. The jeep was found
abandoned in Sanathnagar area of Hyderabad.
7. On the basis of wild assumptions, compensation cannot
directed to be paid by the insurance company. Even by
preponderance of probability, no case is made out by the
claimants to order compensation. I do not find any infirmity with
the finding of the Tribunal.
8. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 13.03.2024.
kvs
