Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 185 (AP)

APSRTC, rep. by its G. M. Hyd. v. Musnam Lalitha

2005-02-25

V.V.S.RAO

body2005
J U D G M E N T The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is appellant. By an order dated 31.3.1999 in O.P.No.361 of 1996, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Medak awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to legal heirs of Anja Goud who died in the accident on 19.1.1996 when allegedly the driver of R.T.C. Bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3465 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against lorry bearing No.AAE 7475 in which Anja Goud was travelling. The claimants in the O.P. or A.P.S.R.T.C. did not lead any evidence. Therefore, the learned Tribunal having regard to Ex.A.I to A.3 which the certified copies of F.I.R., Charge sheet and Inquest report respectively awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under no fault liability. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Ms.Kalyani, submits that in the absence of the owner and driver of the lorry, the O.P. filed by the claimant suffers from incurable defect and the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the 0.P. Further she contends that the learned Tribunal relied only on Ex.A.2 copy of charge sheet to come to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was negligent which has resulted in the accident. 3. Both the submissions are misconceived. The claimants prayed to award compensation for the negligence of the driver of the R.T.C. bus alone. Even though the driver of the R.T.C. Bus is not a party as being vicariously liable the employer i.e., R.T.C. is liable to pay the amount of compensation and therefore the non-joinder of the driver and owner of the lorry as well as the driver of R.T.C. Bus does not non-suit the claimants in an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity). Further, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is constituted by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 165 of the Act for the purpose of adjudicating claim of compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of a third party arising out of use of motor vehicles. Further, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is constituted by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 165 of the Act for the purpose of adjudicating claim of compensation in respect of accidents involving the death of or bodily injury to persons or damages to any property of a third party arising out of use of motor vehicles. Under Section 166 of the Act, a person claiming compensation has to make an application to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area whereupon the Claims Tribunal after giving notice to the insurer or the owner of the vehicle hold an enquiry in the claim and pass an award. Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 (the Rules) promulgated by the Governor of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of powers inter alia under Section 176 of the Act provide the procedure to be adopted by the Claims Tribunal. As per the procedure, the claims Tribunal has to conduct a summary enquiry. While conducting summary enquiry, it is always open to the claims Tribunal to take into consideration the report or information sent to it regarding accident under Section 158 (6) of the Act as it is relevant for the purpose of deciding the issue. Be it also noted that under sub-rule (7) of Rule 476 of the Rules, the claims Tribunal is entitled to award the claim on the basis of inter alia copies of F.I.R., Post mortem certificate or certificate of enquiry by Medical Officer. In recent judgment in NAGAPPA V. GURUDAYAL SINGH(1) the Supreme Court laid down that the Tribunal shall have to treat the report of the accident as an application for compensation. 4. Therefore I do not find any infirmity in the Tribunal relying on F.I.R., Charge Sheet and Inquest report. Further, the learned Tribunal only awarded compensation under Section 140 of the Act which mandates that whether or not the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay the compensation on the principle of no fault. When the appellant is owner of the bus bearing No.AP 9Z 3465, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 5. The appeal is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed with costs set at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). --X--