Telangana High Court
Smt. Pavithra Bhati vs K. Narsimha Major on 7 March, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
M.A.C.M.A. No.4039 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon'ble Smt.Justice K.Sujana)
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Award and Decree dated
06.05.2009 in M.V.O.P.No.2356 of 2005 rendered by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), appellants
herein, who are petitioners in the said claim petition, have
preferred this appeal.
2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they stood
before the Tribunal.
3. The material facts, which have led to the present appeal,
may be set out as follows:
The petitioners, who are the wife, minor children and
parents of one Satyanarayan Bhati (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased'), filed claim-petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') claiming
compensation of Rs.28,06,108/- for the death of the deceased in
KL, J & SKS, J
a vehicular accident, which occurred on 12.09.2004. It is stated
that on 12.09.2004 at about 4.30 PM, while the deceased
Satyanarayan Bhati coming from Shamshabad after attending to
his business and returning to his residence at Begum Bazar,
Hyderabad, by a Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 13 G
0760 and when he reached near Gaghanpahad near
B.E.Company, one unknown vehicle dashed him, resulting which
he received severe injuries and died on the spot. His vehicle was
also damaged. On receipt of a phone message from an unknown
person, one of his relatives by name Balram Bhati rushed to the
spot and thereafter, lodged a complaint with the Police, Rajendra
Nagar. The Police, Rajendra Nagar, registered a case in Crime
No.589 of 2004 under Section 304-A I.P.C. and took up
investigation. During the course of investigation, one Mirza
Sardharulla Baig, driver of the Goods Commercial Vehicle i.e.
Auto bearing No.AP 09 X 5330 surrendered himself before the
VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Ranga Reddy District,
stating that the accident took place due to his rash and negligent
driving of the said vehicle. The deceased Satyanarayan Bhati was
aged about 28 years as on the date of his death, was doing
business by name M/s.Balaji Satyanarayan, at Begum Bazar,
KL, J & SKS, J
Hyderabad, and used to earn Rs.2,04,675.66 ps. per annum from
out of the said business and he was an income tax payee. Due to
the sudden demise of the deceased, the petitioners suffered
mental shock and agony and lost their source of income and also
spent huge amounts for transportation of dead body from the
accident place to Osmania General Hospital and from there to
their residence and to the burial ground. Hence, the petitioners
claiming compensation of Rs.28,06,108/- under all heads from
respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of Auto
bearing No.AP 09 X 5330 respectively.
4. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 was remained exparte
and respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter denying
the allegations of the petition. The contention of respondent No.2
is that as per the First Information Report, Inquest Report and
other evidence collected by the Police, the accident was caused by
an unknown vehicle on 12.09.2004 at about 4.30 PM, without
any evidence and after a lapse of eight months, the charge-sheet
was filed by the Police stating that the driver of Auto bearing
No.AP 09 X 5330 surrendered himself on 12.05.2005 and the
vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on
16.05.2005, which clearly shows that the vehicle was falsely
KL, J & SKS, J
implicated in the case by the petitioners in collusion with the 1st
respondent in order to obtain compensation from the Insurance
Company. Respondent No.2 also denied the age and income of
the deceased and its contention is that Auto bearing No.AP 09 X
5330 was not at all involved in the accident and with a mala fide
intention claiming compensation from the insurance company
with the help of respondent No.1 and according to it, the
deceased died due to his rash and negligent driving, as such,
prayed the Court to dismiss the petition against respondent No.2.
5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 4
were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. On behalf of
respondent No.2, RWs 1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-21
were marked.
6. The learned Tribunal, considering the claim and the
counter filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the
evidence, both oral and documentary, has refused to grant any
compensation to the petitioners on the ground that the
petitioners have failed to establish the involvement of the vehicle
of respondent No.1 in the accident, as such, no liability can be
fasten to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and accordingly, dismissed the
KL, J & SKS, J
claim petition. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal
has been preferred by the petitioners.
7. The contention of the appellants/petitioners is that the
Tribunal had to observe that when there is a possibility of two
ways of interpreting, the beneficial view for the claimants should
have taken into consideration in dealing with accident claims;
Merely basing on the Doctor's evidence that there are imprints of
tyre marks over the body of the deceased, which indicates
running of a heavy vehicle over the dead body, the Tribunal came
to the conclusion that the accident might have occurred by the
involvement of the heavy vehicle over the dead body, the Tribunal
came to the conclusion that the accident might have occurred by
the involvement of the heavy motor vehicle but not light motor
vehicle, which is not correct; The Tribunal ought to have held
that when the deceased fell down after the accident caused by a
light motor vehicle, there is a possibility of running over a heavy
vehicle over the body, which cannot be ruled out and the
evidence of RW-5 clearly discloses that the involvement of Auto
bearing No.AP 9 X 5330 in the accident and prayed the Court to
set aside the Judgment of the trial Court by granting
compensation.
KL, J & SKS, J
8. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred on
12.09.2004 at about 4.30 PM, while the deceased was coming
from Shamshabad to his residence at Begumbazar. The 1st
petitioner, who is wife of the deceased, examined as PW-1 and
reiterated the facts mentioned in the petition in her chief affidavit
and she also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. In her
cross-examination, she admitted that she is not an eye witness to
the accident. She also admitted that her father-in-law by name
Baldev Ram Bhati spoke with the owner of the Auto and she
witnessed the same while he was talking to the owner of the
vehicle, whereas she denied that her father-in-law and the owner
of the Auto hatched a plan and implicated the insured auto. In
re-examination, she denied that owner of the auto came to her
house and she witnessed that her father-in-law spoke with him.
9. PW-2 is the complainant and according to him, on
12.09.2004 at about 5-00 PM, he received a phone call about the
accident and immediately he rushed to the spot and found the
dead body of his relative Satyanarayan Bhati and he lodged a
complaint with the Police, Rajendra Nagar. He admitted that in
complaint he has stated that the accident occurred due to
KL, J & SKS, J
dashing of an unknown vehicle. He also admitted that he is not
an eye witness to the accident.
10. PW-3 is stated to be an eye witness to the accident and
according to him on 12.09.2004 evening he left Hyderabad to
Kurnool in his taxi along with passengers and when he reached
near B.E.Company, Gaganpahad, at about 4.30 PM, he witnessed
that one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 9 X 5330, which was
proceeding behind his vehicle, suddenly overtook his car and
dashed to a motor cycle in opposite direction, due to which the
motor cyclist died on the spot. According to him, the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Auto
Trolley. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he has not
received any summons from the Court and he informed to the
father of the deceased three or four days after the accident and
given the number of auto trolley to petitioner No.6. He denied the
suggestion that since he was called by petitioner No.6 to give
evidence in the Court, though he has not seen the accident, he
deposed falsely to help the petitioners.
KL, J & SKS, J
11. PW-4, who is a Tax Consultant, deposed with regard to
filing of Income Tax Returns on behalf of the deceased.
12. On the other hand, respondent No.2-Insurance Company
examined its Assistant manager as RW-1. The evidence of RW-1
disclosed that they have appointed Insurance
Surveyor/Investigator to investigate into the matter and submit a
report. Accordingly, during the course of investigation, the said
Surveyor has examined eye witnesses namely S.Narasimha Reddy
and Simhachalam and further the said Surveyor has obtained a
copy of Investigation Report from the Police and also Post Mortem
Examination Report. The Surveyor has also examined the Duty
Doctor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Osmania Medical
College, who conducted post mortem over the dead body of the
deceased, wherein the Doctor clearly opined that injuries 7 and 8
are having imprints of the tyres of a heavy vehicle. RW-1 further
stated that in the First Information Report and Inquest Report it
is mentioned that the alleged accident was caused due to the hit
by an unknown vehicle, but after lapse of more than eight
months, charge-sheet was filed by the Police on 25.05.2005
stating that accused surrendered himself on 12.05.2005 and the
vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector on
KL, J & SKS, J
16.05.2005. RW-1 also stated that their enquires through
investigator in and around the petitioners' place and accident
spot, revealed that the accident was caused by a DCM Van, but
not by an Auto Rikshaw and the Auto bearing No.AP 09 X 5330
was not involved in the accident and, therefore, they came to the
conclusion that the said Auto was falsely implicated by
respondent No.1in collusion with the petitioners. Through him
Exs.B-1 to B-11 were marked on their behalf.
13. RW-2 is the Investigator appointed by the Insurance
Company and his evidence is that during his investigation he
examined one of the witnesses by name Narasimha Reddy, who
gave the statement stating that the accident was occurred due to
dashing of a DCM Van, which ran over the motor cycle and he
has recorded his statement. He also took the opinion of
Dr.K.Janardhan, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of
the deceased Satyanarayan and the said Doctor confirmed that
as per the Post Mortem Examination Report, there are 16 injuries
on the body and injuries 7 and 8 are having imprints of tyres of a
heavy vehicle.
KL, J & SKS, J
14. RW-3 (Dr.K.Janardhan) is a Medical Officer, who conducted
Post Mortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased.
He stated that on requisition of Police, he conducted autopsy over
the dead body of the deceased on 13.09.2004 between 10.10 AM
and 11.00 AM. He noticed 16 ante mortem injuries. He further
stated that on 04.09.2007, 2nd respondent served a questionnaire
upon him, in respect of injury Nos.7 and 8. He stated that both
the injuries had imprints of tyre marks and are possible when a
heavy motor vehicle runs over the body. In his cross-
examination, he admitted that he alone conducted post mortem
examination. He also admitted that multiplicity of the injuries,
nature of the injuries and severity of the injuries show the
possibility of injuries being caused by a heavy vehicle and it is
not possible that the injuries caused by a light motor vehicle.
15. RW-4 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector and according to him,
on 18.05.2005 at about 1.15 PM, he inspected the Auto bearing
No.AP 9 X-5330 on the requisition given by Station House Officer,
Rajendra Nagar.
16. RW-5 is the Investigating Officer, who conducted
investigation in the accident case in Crime No.589 of 2004 under
KL, J & SKS, J
Section 304-A I.P.C. and filed charge-sheet. He stated that on
12.09.2004 he was the Station House Officer of Rajendra Nagar
Police Station and he received complaint from one Mr.Balram
Bhati stating that his relative by name Satyanarayana Bhati met
with an accident with an unknown vehicle and died on the spot
and on the basis of said complaint, he registered the crime.
According to him, on 19.09.2004 for the first time, he received
information over phone about the involvement of Auto bearing
No.AP 9 X 5330 and Part-I C.D. from 12.09.2004 to 10.04.2005
shows that there was no information about the vehicle involved in
the accident and in the 3rd column it is mentioned as unknown
Lorry and Exs.B-13 to B-21 are the Case Diary Part-I statements.
In his cross-examination, he admitted that no eye witness was
examined and the place of accident is a busy road.
17. Heard Sri K.V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the
appellants/petitioners, as well as Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. Perused the material available on record.
18. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that Motor
Vehicle Act is a beneficiary legislation, strict proof is not required
KL, J & SKS, J
as in the Civil and Criminal cases and when there are two views,
the beneficial view for the claimants should have taken into
consideration while deciding application under Section 166 of the
Act, as they lost the bread winner of the family. In support of his
contention, he relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Janabai and others vs. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord
Insurance Company Limited 1, wherein it is held in Paragraph
No.10 that the rule of evidence to prove charges in a criminal trial
cannot be used while deciding an application under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is summary in nature.
There is no reason to doubt the veracity of statement of injured,
who suffered injuries in the accident and the application under
the Act has to be decided on the basis of the evidence led before it
and not on the basis of evidence which should have been or could
have been led in a criminal trial.
19. Insofar as the injuries case is concerned, the injured
himself is an eye witness to the accident, whereas in the case on
hand, the appellants claiming compensation on account of death
of the deceased.
2022 (5) ALD 76 SC
KL, J & SKS, J
20. Learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance upon the
Judgment of Madras High Court in the case of Vahida Banu and
others vs. M/s.Parveen Travels (P) Ltd., and another 2, wherein
it is held that for the sake of getting compensation for the
claimants, no one would confess or accept his guilt, surrender
before the Police authorities and get incarcerated unmindful of
the adverse impact such incarceration would befall on him in
future.
21. Though there must be some probability in the evidence to
prove the contention, there is no long gap of eight months from
the date of accident and also the admission of the guilt, as such,
the said Judgment is not applicable to this case.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied on the
Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
Devendra Gupa vs. Manoj Kumar Yogi and another 3, wherein
it is held that it is well settled principle of law that the documents
of the criminal cases cannot be relied upon, First Information
Report is not a substantive piece of evidence and claim cases are
2023 ACJ 662 (Madras)
2021 ACJ 2046 (Madhya Pradesh)
KL, J & SKS, J
to be decided on the basis of the evidence led before the Claims
Tribunal.
23. Whereas in the present case, the complainant himself
admitted that he gave complaint stating that unknown vehicle hit
the deceased. The First Information Report is registered basing
on the complaint, as such, the above decision is not helpful to
the case of the appellants.
24. Learned counsel for the appellants relied on the decision of
the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature,
Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, in P.Suneela and others
vs.Shaik Kamal and another 4, wherein it is observed that
merely eye witness found to be was not in the charge-sheet, his
evidence cannot be unreliable, though he was not shown as
witness in the charge-sheet filed by the Police.
25. In the present case, it is not the case of eye witness.
Respondent No.2-Insurance Company disputing the involvement
of the crime vehicle on the basis of the evidence adduced by the
petitioners themselves.
2019 (2) ALD 390 (DB)
KL, J & SKS, J
26. Learned counsel for the appellants further relied on the
Judgment of Jammi and Kashmir High Court in United India
Insurance Com.Ltd., vs. Ashok Kumari and others 5, wherein
it is mentioned that the Tribunal under the Act has been held to
have trappings of a Court and though it is not enjoying by law to
observe all rules and the procedure pertained in the Civil
Procedure Code and in the Evidence Act, yet it has to decide the
matter before it fairly and objectively.
27. Learned counsel also relied on the Judgment of the Division
Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Telangana and
Andhra Pradesh, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Proddatur, Cuddapah District vs. Bhoomi Reddy Peddi
Reddy Lakshmi Devi and others 6, wherein it is observed that
the Investigator, who is an Advocate, was not examined by the
Insurance Company and, therefore, there is no evidentiary value
for Ex.B-2 and the Tribunal is also justified in not taking into
consideration the said report of the Investigator.
28. Whereas in the present case, the investigator was examined
as RW-2 before the Tribunal and he also subjected to the cross-
Law Finder Documetn ID 2233266 dated 23.05.2023
2011 (1) ALD 686 (DB)
KL, J & SKS, J
examination. Therefore, said Judgment is not applicable with the
facts of this case.
29. Further, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India
Assurance Company Limited vs. Pradeep Kumar 7, wherein it
is observed that claimants were merely to establish their case on
the touch stone of preponderance of probability and strict proof is
not required.
30. The said decision contradicting the evidence led in the case
on hand.
31. The total case is depending upon the admission of the
driver before the Police. The said voluntary admission of
involvement of the vehicle has to be seen whether it is genuine or
not. The accident was occurred on 12.09.2004 whereas on
12.05.2005 the accused Mirja Sardarullah Baig himself
surrendered before the Criminal Court and he was enlarged on
bail. Therefore, after surrender of the accused only, the Police
could have filed the charge-sheet. Admittedly, there is a gap of
(2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 787
KL, J & SKS, J
nearly eight months between the accident and admission before
the Criminal Court and there is no reason assigned for the same,
as such, the Tribunal rightly doubted the evidence of eye witness
and also the submission of the driver in the said criminal case.
As the involvement of the crime vehicle itself is in dispute and is
doubtful, though strict proof is not necessary in Motor Vehicle
Accident Case, there must be reasonable evidence to believe the
case of the appellants. The evidence on record is not inspiring
the confidence of the Court. Therefore, there is no illegality in the
order of the Tribunal. However, as per the complaint itself the
accident occurred with an unknown vehicle, as such, it comes
under the hit and run case. Therefore, the appellants herein are
entitled for the compensation from the Central Government
under the Scheme for Compensation to victims of Hit and Run
Motor Accidents vide Notification of Ministry of Road Transport
And Highways, dated 25.02.2022 under General Statutory Rules
163(E).
32. For the foregoing reasons, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed,
order dated 06.05.2009 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, is
upheld and the appellants are at liberty to avail remedy provided
KL, J & SKS, J
vide Notification of Ministry of Road Transport And Highways,
dated 25.02.2022 under General Statutory Rules 163(E).
33. Pending Miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K. LAKSHMAN, J
______________
K.SUJANA, J
Date: 07.03.2024
svl
