Telangana High Court
Kailash Chowdary vs Smt. Peddolla Ngamani on 6 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1939 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 31.05.2016
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgment') passed by
the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum -
Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter will
be referred as 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.868 of 2013, the
Appellant, who is the sole respondent/owner of the crime
vehicle filed the present Appeal to set aside the impugned
judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are as under:
a) The petitioners filed claim petition under Section 166 of
the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-
against the sole respondent for the death of their family member
in the road traffic accident that occurred on 10.09.2012. The
petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are the
children of Sri P. Ramulu (hereinafter will be referred as
MGP,J
'deceased'). The reason assigned by the petitioners for the death
of the deceased is that on 10.09.2012 at about 3.00 PM while
the deceased was proceeding by walk from Malkajgiri X Roads
towards his house situated at Venkateshwara Nagar, at HP
Petrol Pump at Yadav Nagar, Malkajgiri, the rider of TVS XL
Motor Cycle bearing No. AP 29 AQ 1805 came in rash and
negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased. As
a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained head injury
apart from other injuries all over the body. The deceased was
shifted to LK Hospital, Malkajgiri for first aid and then to Sai
VAni Hospital, Domalguda, wherein he was treated as inpatient
on 10.09.2012 and discharged on 11.09.2012. But the
deceased succumbed to the injuries at his residence on
19.09.2012 at about 7.30 PM.
b) A case in Crime No.405 of 2012 of Malkajgiri Police
Station was registered against the driver of the crime vehicle for
the offence under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code and
later Section of law was altered to Section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code.
MGP,J
c) Due to the accident, the petitioners suffered with mental
agony and their hope for better life shattered due to untimely
death of the deceased.
d) Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, the petitioners claimed
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the sole respondent.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent filed counter denying the averments
of the petition and mainly contended that the deceased was in
drunken condition and when the respondent reached HP Petrol
Pump, the deceased walked in trembling manner and suddenly
came in front of the respondent's vehicle and fell down. It is
further contended that the elder daughter of the deceased was
working as a receptionist in Sai Vani Hospital and therefore, the
deceased should have been retained in the hospital for better
treatment, in case, he really suffered head injury and in fact the
deceased was discharged from the hospital within one day. It is
further contended that the deceased was a chronic alcoholic
and there could have been other reasons for his death but not
the injuries sustained in the accident. It is also argued that the
after a full fledged trial, the respondent was acquitted in
MGP,J
C.C.No.1570/2012 by the II Metropolitan Magistrate - cum -
Principle Magistrate for Juvenile Justice Board, Cyberabhad on
27.11.2013 and thus, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal
framed the following issue:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a
compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent, for
causing the death of Ramulu, in a motor vehicular
accident that occurred on 10-09-2012 at about 03.00 PM
near HP Petrol Pump at Yadav Nagar at Malkajgiri, due
to rash, negligent and high speed ride of TVS SL
Motorcycle bearing No. AP 29 AQ 1805 by its driver?
6. In order to establish the claim before the learned
Tribunal, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were
exhibited on behalf of the petitioners. On the other hand, the
respondent, who is the driver of the crime vehicle, examined
himself as RW1 and Ex.B1 was exhibited.
7. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned
judgment awarding Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation to the
petitioners. Aggrieved by the same, the sole respondent filed the
present Appeal to set aside the impugned judgment.
MGP,J
8. Heard Sri Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the
respondent/appellant, Ms. Nandana Sarma PVB, learned
counsel representing Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the
respondents/claimants and perused the material available on
record including the grounds of Appeal.
9. It is to be seen that the respondents/claimants did not
prefer any Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant/respondents is that there is no negligence on
his part and in fact the deceased was in drunken condition and
when the respondent reached HP Petrol Pump, the deceased
walked in trembling manner and suddenly came in front of the
respondent's vehicle and fell down.
11. In order to establish that the accident did not occur due
to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle, the respondent
got examined himself before the learned Tribunal as RW1. RW1
admitted in his cross examination that he is none other than
the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., TVS XL motorcycle bearing
registration No.AP 29 AQ 1805. He further admitted that he
MGP,J
has no driving license to drive two-wheeler (by the date of
accident).
12. On the other hand, in order to prove the rash and
negligent driving of the respondent in causing the accident, the
petitioners got examined PW2, who is alleged to be working as
cashier at HP Petrol Bunk at Malkajgiri, wherein alleged
accident took place. Pw2 categorically deposed that on
10.09.2012 at about 3.00 PM while he was on duty in the petrol
bunk, he noticed one male person was proceeding by walk from
Malkajgiri X Roads towards Mirjalaguda side on the extreme left
side margin of the road with great care and diligence and when
he reached near HP Petrol pump at Yadav Nagar, Malkajgiri,
suddenly one TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 29
AQ 1805 came in rash and negligent manner with high speed
and dashed to male person. The evidence of PW2 further
discloses that he was the person, who informed about the
incident to 108 - ambulance.
13. Though PW2 was cross examined by the learned counsel
for the respondent, nothing could be elicited to discard his
evidence. It is pertinent to note that PW2 is an independent
witness, who was shown as LW3 in the charge sheet under
MGP,J
Ex.A2. Thus, the evidence of PW2 is consistent and
corroborating with the evidence of PW1 so far as the manner in
which the accident alleged to have occurred is concerned.
14. Apart from the oral evidence, the petitioners relied upon
Exs.A1 to A5 i.e., FIR, charge sheet, inquest report, PME report
and MVI report. Exs.A1 to A4 categorically discloses that the
accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the
crime vehicle by the respondent.
15. As per the charge sheet, at the time of accident the
respondent was coming from Mirjalguda on his TVS XL
Motorcycle with two pillion riders without driving license,
insurance and drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner
with high speed and dashed the deceased. Even the learned
Tribunal on considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2
coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A4, arrived
to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver i.e., the sole
respondent.
16. RW1 deposed in his cross examination that his vehicle did
not even touch the deceased. But a perusal of Ex.A5 i.e., report
issued by Motor Vehicle Inspector disclose that head light frame
MGP,J
dented. If at all the crime vehicle did not even touch the
deceased, the respondent is expected to furnish sufficient
explanation for the alleged denting to head light frame as
alleged in Ex.A5. That apart in ground No.11 the respondent
alleged that the deceased might have fallen down due to the
collision and received injuries. Thus, there is no clarity in the
version of respondent as to whether there was collision or not
because on one hand he is arguing that the deceased did not
even touch his vehicle and on the other hand he is contending
that the deceased might have fallen down due to collision.
17. It is the specific contention of the respondent that though
he was charged for causing the alleged accident under various
sections of Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicle Act, he was
acquitted in C.C.No.1570 of 2012 of allegations leveled against
him and thereby he is not liable to pay any compensation. In
support of the said contention, the respondent exhibited Ex.B1
the copy of the judgment in C.C.No.1570 of 2012.
18. The respondent is making an attempt to bringing out the
contradictions between the criminal case and the case before
the learned Tribunal. However, it is settled law that an
acquittal in a criminal court does not influence proceedings
MGP,J
before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal because the
standards of proof differ between criminal trials and
proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In
criminal cases, the prosecution must establish guilt of the
accused "beyond a reasonable doubt," whereas in cases before
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, claims are to be decided based
on the "preponderance of probabilities." It is settled law that the
acquittal of a driver in a criminal trial does not absolve them of
negligence under civil liability. The proceedings before the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal operate independently
of criminal trials, and an acquittal in the latter does not wipe
out the possibility of a finding with regard to negligence in the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
19. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent argued
that the learned Tribunal erred by not considering the fact that
no proper medical evidence was adduced by the claimants to
prove that the deceased succumbed due to severe injuries
caused during the accident, wherein the respondent was alleged
for driving in a rash and negligent manner. It is further
contention of the appellant/respondent that the deceased died 9
days after the alleged accident and that the deceased might
MGP,J
have sustained injures in any other incident due to alcohol
consumption.
20. As seen from Ex.A4 postmortem examination report, the
deceased died due to head injury (internal). Admittedly, as per
Ex.A1, the incident occurred on 10.09.2012. As per Ex.A2, the
deceased was provided first aid treatment at LK Hospital,
Malkajgiri on the same day of the incident and thereafter he was
shifted to Sai Vani Hospital, Domalguda for better treatment. As
per Ex.A9 i.e., prescription along with C Scan issued by Sai
Vani Hospital, Domalguda, the deceased sustained right
hemorrhagic infarct in the basal ganglia causing mild
compression on the right lateral ventricle. As per Ex.A3 at the
time of accident, blood was oozing from his right ear. It appears
that due to the accident there has been bleeding (hemorrhage)
in the right side of the brain and there is a chance of causing
infection in the brain due to the accumulated blood from a
ruptured blood vessel in the brain. Moreover, it is not
mandatory that a person, who sustains a head injury, will die
on the spot or immediately. The severity of a head injury varies
widely. Severe head trauma, especially if it involves significant
bleeding, skull fractures, or brain swelling, can be fatal either
immediately or later due to complications.
MGP,J
21. In the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Bibi
Nafisa and others 1 the High Court of Karnataka exonerated the
insurance company on the ground that the crime vehicle was
being driven by a minor, who is not qualified person to apply for
driving license so as to come within the ambit of sub-clause (ii)
of sub-section (2) Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In
Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain and others 2 the Honourable
Supreme Court observed that in the event of driver being a
minor without any license, liability to pay the compensation
may be saddled on the owner of the vehicle and direct the
insurance company to pay and recover. In the instant case the
vehicle was not even insured as can be seen from Ex.A2 charge
sheet.
22. One of the contentions raised by the respondent is that
the learned Tribunal while relying on Ex.A6 came to erroneous
conclusion that the deceased was drawing a monthly salary of
Rs.19,128/- but the claimants have not filed any income tax
returns to show that the deceased was paid such monthly
salary.
1 MFA No.4683 of 2014 (MV-D) decided on 28.05.2024
2 2011 CJ (SC) 864
MGP,J
23. As can be seen from the record, the claimants have
examined the Senior Manager of United Spirits, wherein the
deceased was alleged to have been working with Employment ID
No.100578, as PW3 to establish the monthly income of the
deceased. Apart from that the claimants have relied upon
documentary evidence under Ex.A6 i.e., salary certificate issued
by the employer of the deceased. PW3 categorically deposed
that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.19,128/- and
Rs.100/- was being deducted from his salary towards
professional tax besides PF. Ex.A6 is the salary certificate
issued by United Spirits. Thus, the income of the deceased as
fixed by the learned Tribunal is supported by oral and
documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants.
Once the claimants have adduced sufficient oral and
documentary evidence to establish the monthly income of the
deceased, the question of filing income tax returns to establish
the income of the deceased does not arise. Though PW3 was
cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent,
nothing could be elicited to establish that the deceased was not
drawing Rs.19,128/- per month. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to interfere with finding of the learned Tribunal so far
as earning capacity of the deceased is concerned.
MGP,J
24. It was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Jawahar Singh's case (supra) that the sole responsibility of
accident lies on the person driving the motorcycle since it is the
duty of owner to ensure that his motorcycle is not misused. In
the present case, the respondent himself is the owner of the
vehicle and also a minor. Further, though contributory
negligence was attributed against the deceased in the present
case, there is no iota of evidence to establish that there was
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased in causing
the accident. As can be gathered from Ex.A2 charge sheet, the
respondent, who was studying intermediate at the time of
accident, was driving the crime vehicle without any license and
insurance, more particularly, the respondent was accompanied
by two pillion riders also. Thus, viewed from any angle, there is
no point in exonerating the respondent, who is responsible for
the alleged accident, from paying the compensation.
25. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the appellant/respondent
failed to establish any of the grounds to set aside the well
reasoned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal. Thus, the
present Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
MGP,J
26. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 06.03.2025
AS
