Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1044 (AP)

Jampala Satyanarayana v. Mirza Akthar Baig

2011-11-23

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment : The minor child of the appellants herein, aged 4 years, by name Sree Durga, died in an accident on 01.10.1991 by 12.30 noon at Ankola camp, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad District. It was pleaded that when the child was crossing the road, a Jeep bearing No.AHJ 1208, driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, dashed against the child, resulting in instantaneous death. The appellants filed O.P.No.259 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and the O.P. was contested by respondent No.3 alone. 3. A counter was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 denying the facts pleaded in the O.P. However, it was mentioned that the vehicle had a valid insurance coverage and that it would abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. The Tribunal passed an order, dated 15.12.1997, awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation under ‘no fault liability’. It exempted respondent No.3 from the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that there is no valid coverage. The appellants feel aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Heard Sri K.M.Mahender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Though they are made parties to the appeal, it was dismissed against them on account of non-service of notice. That, however, is of no consequence as long as respondent No.3 is served and is represented. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has also advanced arguments. 8. To prove their case, the appellants examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and filed Exs.A1 to A6. The documentary evidence pertaining to the criminal case instituted in relation to the accident and other proceedings. No evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.3. 9. This Court is indeed shocked to know the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the case. The fact that the child died on account of her being knocked by the Jeep is evident from the First Information Report, marked as Ex.A1; charge sheet, Ex.A2; postmortem report, Ex.A4; scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A5; and inquest report, Ex.A6. A report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is marked as Ex.A3. The fact that the child died on account of her being knocked by the Jeep is evident from the First Information Report, marked as Ex.A1; charge sheet, Ex.A2; postmortem report, Ex.A4; scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A5; and inquest report, Ex.A6. A report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is marked as Ex.A3. According to this, the vehicle did not have any mechanical defects and the accident occurred on account of human failure. 10. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the vehicle, did not enter appearance, much less did he depose as a witness. Though respondent No.3 contested the matter, it did not examine any witness. Still, it was held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased child. There cannot be a better instance of perversity than the one resorted to by the Tribunal. 11. The Tribunal did not undertake any discussion whatever as regards the quantum of compensation. The entire discussion is contained in para 9 of the order, which reads as under: “As it is already held in Issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the driver of jeep as well as the deceased, as such, the petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- under ‘no fault liability’.” 12. This Court is compelled to observe that the learned Presiding Officer, who passed the order, was totally unfit to handle the matters under the Motor Vehicles Act. He appears to be not only perverse but also lacks even traces of humanity or kindness and he adorned the post, only to sub-serve his livelihood. 13. Then comes to the question of fastening the liability. The Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation and accordingly dismissed the O.P. against it. The discussion on this aspect is contained in paragraphs 10 and 11, which read as under: “Respondent No.3 in its counter denied about the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver only, moreover, the driver of jeep was also not having driving licence and further denied about the insurance of the jeep with respondent No3 is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Admittedly, the licence of the jeep driver has not been filed in the Court to prove that on the date of accident he was having valid driving licence, and the vehicle was insured with respondent No3. Therefore, I hold that respondent Nos.1 and 2 alone are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.” 14. It was nobody’s case that the driver of the vehicle did not have licence, much less that fact was proved by respondent No.3. In view of the extreme perversity exhibited by the learned Presiding Officer, this Court has gone through the record, in detail. Not even a suggestion was made to P.Ws.1 and 2 to the effect that the driver of the vehicle did not have licence. 15. This is one of the rare cases where respondent No.3 filed a counter admitting that there exists a valid insurance coverage for the vehicle at the relevant point of time. The learned Presiding Officer was so cynical in his approach that he searched certain vague grounds by himself to ensure that the appellants do not get any compensation at all. Had the Officer been in service as of now, this Court would have considered the feasibility of referring his case to the administrative committee for taking action for his incompetence and cynical approach. The O.P. was decided in the year 1997 and the Officer has retired from service. 16. If the correct parameters provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly, those contained in Schedule II are applied, the appellants are entitled to compensation which would be in lakhs. However, to their misfortune, they claimed only Rs.80,000/- 17. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellants is enhanced to Rs.80,000/- with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P.Respondent No.3 shall be liable to pay the compensation.Appellant Nos.1 and 2 shall be entitled to 50% each of compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.