Telangana High Court
Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. ... vs Pandula Maisaiah Goud And 3 Others on 14 February, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
M.A.C.M.A. No.1701 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed
aggrieved by the judgment dated 09.08.2010 in O.P.No. 154 of
2007, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(District Judge), Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal').
2. The Appellant is the Respondent No.2 insurer in the
aforesaid OP. The Respondent No. 1 to 3 herein are the husband
and sons of the deceased Smt. Dhanalaxmi @ Laxmamma. The
Respondent No. 4 herein is the owner of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle
No. AP-29-H-7554.
3. Heard Sri. T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt. K. Rajitha learned counsel appearing for
Respondents No. 1 to 3. Despite service of notice none appeared
for Respondent No. 4.
4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 21.11.2005 at 10.30
p.m., the deceased was crossing the road at Srinivasanagar, L.B.
Nagar when a Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-29-H-7554 in a
rash and negligent manner dashed her. Subsequently on 23.11.2005
the deceased passed away while undergoing treatment at Kamineni
Hospital. Aggrieved by the death of the deceased the Respondents
No. 1 to 3 herein filed the subject OP seeking a compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, had held that the accident occurred due to the
rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing
No. AP-29-H-7554. The Tribunal while holding the Appellant and
the Respondent No. 4 herein are jointly and severally liable,
allowed the OP in part, awarding a total compensation of
Rs.3,27,200/- along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved
by the same, the present appeal is filed
6. It is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal erred in
holding that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent
driving of the Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-29-H-
7554 after noticing an inconsistency in the evidence PW-2 and on
noticing that the Respondent No.2 in his complaint has mentioned
the description of the offending vehicle as Suzuki Motor Cycle
bearing No. AP-09-AD-447.
7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents
No. 1 to 3 contended that accident was caused by Bajaj Pulsar
Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-29-H-7554 and thus, the order of the
Tribunal was just.
8. I have taken note of their respective contentions.
9. The sole question arising for consideration of this Court is
whether the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occured on
account of rash driving of Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No.
AP-29-H-7554.
10. At the outset, it is to be seen that the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 (for short 'the Act') is a beneficial legislation where the
standard of proof to be borne in mind is that of preponderance of
possibilities and not strict standard of proof as followed in criminal
trials (See: Rajwati and Ors. Vs. United India Insurance
Company Ltd. and Ors1). It is also of consequence to note that a
victim or witness of a fatal road accident is not expected to identify
minute details of the offending vehicle by its maker's name or the
year of manufacture. It would be sufficient if they are able to
MANU/SC/1595/2022 :2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1016
provide a broad description of the vehicle, which would aid the
police authorities during investigation.
11. A perusal of the record indicates, that the F.I.R. was
registered on the basis of the complaint given by the Respondent
No.2. Though the complaint has mentioned the offending vehicle
as a Suzuki motor cycle bearing No. AP-09-AD-447, admittedly
Respondent No. 2 was not an eye witness to the accident. On
investigating the matter, and taking statements of eye witnesses,
the police had filed a charge sheet against Respondent No. 4
herein, stating that his Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing bearing
No. AP-29-H-7554 was the offending vehicle. Further, it is settled
law that a first information report is not an encyclopedia (See: M/s.
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of
Maharashtra2). Therefore, this Court is unable to accept the
contention of the appellant that the Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle
bearing No. AP-29-H-7554 was mentioned as the offending vehicle
in the charge sheet as a result of collusion between all the
respondents herein, to cause loss to the appellant. Further, the
respondent herein has not shown to this Court that he has taken an
AIR 2021 SC 1918
independent-steps against the owner of the vehicle for the alleged
collusion.
12. Further, though the PW-2 who is an eye witness to the
accident was unable to recollect the number of the vehicle, it is no
one's case that the eye witness has denied that the offending
vehicle was not a Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle. However, considering
that PW-2's evidence does not clearly establish the vehicle number
as 'AP-29-H-7554', this Court is of the view that it is just to apply
the principle of 'pay and recover' in case the appellant establishes
his right against the Respondent No. 4.
13. Accordingly, this Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is partly allowed. The finding of the Tribunal holding the
Appellant and the Respondent No. 4 jointly and severally liable is
undisturbed. The Appellant herein is directed to pay the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Respondents No. 1 to
3 within three (3) months from the date of the receipt of a copy of
this order, and recover the same from Respondent No. 4/owner of
the vehicle thereafter.
14. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any, shall stand closed.
No order as to costs.
______________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
14th February, 2025.
mrkr/vsv
