Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 981 (AP)

Kunta Rajitha v. Jayapal Reddy

2011-11-11

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2011
Judgment :- The appellants filed O.P.No.956 of 2000 before the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Kunta Venkanna, husband of appellant No.1, son of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and brother of appellant Nos.4, 5 and 6. It was stated that Venkanna was working as an Advocate Clerk at Warangal and that on 30.07.2000, himself and another Clerk, by name Bommera Raju (P.W.1) were coming from Wardhannapet to Warangal and that when they reached Panthini Village, a Jeep bearing No.AP12 T 1700, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, dashed against the Scooter, resulting in death of Venkanna and injuries to Bommera Raju. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Jeep. The deceased was said to be aged 25 years and that his income was Rs.4,000/- per month. 2. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by respondent No.2. A counter was filed putting the appellants herein to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them. It was also pleaded that there is a possibility of the deceased himself being guilty of negligence. The averments as to income, age and loss of dependency were also disputed. 3. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through order, dated 29.11.2003, holding that the involvement of the Jeep in the accident was not proved. Hence this appeal. 4. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse, since it recorded a finding, which is not supported by any evidence at all. He contends that in one voice, one of the injured in the same accident, P.W.1, and an inmate of the Jeep, P.W.3, have stated that the accident occurred due to rashness on the part of the driver of the Jeep and still, a finding was recorded to the effect that the involvement of the Jeep is not proved. The learned counsel further submits that the only witness examined by respondent No.2 i.e. R.W.1 has admitted his ignorance about the facts of the case. He also submits that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and there was a bright prospect for him to improve his income. 5. The learned counsel further submits that the only witness examined by respondent No.2 i.e. R.W.1 has admitted his ignorance about the facts of the case. He also submits that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and there was a bright prospect for him to improve his income. 5. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that though the appellants pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the Jeep, the evidence on record did not support it. The learned counsel further submits that mere registration of a criminal case does not by itself prove the involvement. 6. The O.P. filed by the appellants herein was heard along with another O.P. being M.V.O.P.No.1063 of 2000 filed by Bommera Raju, who figured as P.W.1 herein. The Tribunal framed a common issue in both the O.Ps., namely “whether the accident occurred on 30.07.2000 was due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. AP 12 T 1700 driven by its Driver”. The second Issue in both the O.Ps. was as to the entitlement of the claimants, to be paid the compensation. 7. On behalf of the appellants, P.W.s1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were filed. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. The first issue was answeredin the negative. Therefore, the Tribunal did not deal with the second issue at all. 8. Before this Court, two points arise for consideration, namely; (1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the Driver of the Jeep? (2) Whether the appellants are entitled to be paid any compensation and if so, the quantum thereof? 9. One Sri Bommera Raju, who is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.1063 of 2000, deposed not only with reference to his claim, but also about the accident and the death of the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.956 of 2000. He is shown as P.Ws.1 and 3, obviously, with reference to different cases. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eyewitness. Therefore, her evidence would not be of much help. 10. P.W.4 is an inmate of the jeep. Even if one excludes the evidence of P.W.1, since he was an injured and claimant, the evidence of P.W.4 assumes significance. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. She is not an eyewitness. Therefore, her evidence would not be of much help. 10. P.W.4 is an inmate of the jeep. Even if one excludes the evidence of P.W.1, since he was an injured and claimant, the evidence of P.W.4 assumes significance. This witness stated that himself and another friend of him boarded the Jeep at Warangal with a view to go to Rayaparthy and that in spite of their warning, the driver of the Jeep was proceeding in a rash manner. He further stated that the accident occurred when the Jeep dashed against the Scooter and the driver stopped the vehicle about 50 meters away and he noticed that the deceased was a person from his Village. It was also his case that he intended to report the matter to the nearby Police Station at Wardhannapet and since the Jeep did not stop, he reported the matter to the Police Station, Rayaparthy. Nothing was elicited from this witness, to discredit his version. 11. The documentary evidence comprised of F.I.R (Ex.A1), injury certificate of P.W.1 (Ex.A2), charge sheet (Ex.A3), copy of inquest (Ex.A5), post-mortem report (Ex.A6). In all these documents, the number of the Jeep and the name of the driver were mentioned. S.S.C. Memo of deceased in O.P.No.956 of 2000 (Ex.A7), which reflected his date of birth, was also filed. 12. It is rather interesting to note the manner in which the Tribunal proceeded to decide the first issue. The factors that weighed with the Tribunal were that, being an Advocate Clerk by himself, P.W.1 i.e. Bommera Raju did not mention the particulars of the vehicle in the complaint, that a complaint leading to the registration of F.I.R. was given by the father of the deceased on the next day i.e. 31.07.2000 and that even there, the number of the vehicle was not mentioned. Though the Tribunal was dealing with a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, it has gone to the extent of doubting the very charge sheet filed in a criminal case on the ground that it was mainly based upon the surrender of the Jeep driver on 31.08.2000. Though the Tribunal was dealing with a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, it has gone to the extent of doubting the very charge sheet filed in a criminal case on the ground that it was mainly based upon the surrender of the Jeep driver on 31.08.2000. The approach of the Tribunal can be discerned from the following paragraph: “The charge sheet discloses the statements of the witnesses and it relies upon only single circumstance that the driver of the Jeep surrendered on 31.08.2000 along with the owner and he was remanded and therefore he was charged. The investigating officer is the best witness to show as to on what basis the unidentified vehicle was identified as the jeep belonging to the first respondent. Merely because the Police could file a charge sheet mentioning some vehicle at the instance of some interestedness parties, it does not mean that the overwhelming circumstances about the untruth have to be excluded. Even by the time of inquest when the identity of the vehicle or the description of the vehicle is not known, it is for the petitioner to show as to how the identity is established. The evidence of P.W.4 appears to be highly interested and pressed into service as if he was travelling in the jeep, his conduct appears to be unnatural and no credence can be given. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim of the respondent about the falsity of the claim is not correct.” 13. This Court does not at all approve the approach of the Tribunal. Whatever be the liability of a driver to be punished for rash and negligent driving of a vehicle, the registration of a crime with reference to the accident is treated as proof as to involvement of the vehicle when the issue arises in a claim petition before a Tribunal. When an accident occurs and the vehicle involved flees away, it is just unimaginable as to how the number thereof can be mentioned in the complaint or other proceedings instantly. The Tribunal proceeded as though the claim cannot be considered unless all the particulars must be mentioned in the complaint immediately after the accident. This virtually exonerates the owner or insurer of a vehicle, which does not stop after the accident. The standard of proof insisted by the Tribunal, in a way is stringent than the one in a criminal case. 14. This virtually exonerates the owner or insurer of a vehicle, which does not stop after the accident. The standard of proof insisted by the Tribunal, in a way is stringent than the one in a criminal case. 14. In case respondent No.2 wanted to prove that the vehicle was not involved, the best person to speak about it was respondent No.1 or the driver of the vehicle. None of them were examined. R.W.1, who spoke on behalf of respondent No.2, clearly expressed his ignorance about the facts of the case. 15. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the Jeep bearing No.AP12 T 1700 was not involved in the accident, is set aside and it is held that the deceased died on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the said Jeep. 16. Now comes the issue to the quantum of compensation and entitlement of the appellants to receive it. 17. The age of the deceased was reflected as 25 in Ex.A7, an official document. Though the appellants pleaded that he was earning an income of Rs.4,000/- per month, no evidence was adduced in that behalf. However, taking into account, the average income which an Advocate Clerk earns at the relevant point of time at a District Head Quarter, the income of the deceased can safely be treated as Rs.3000/- per month. Since the number of claimants is more, one-fourth needs to be deducted from it, towards his personal expenditure. His monthly contribution to the family would have been Rs.2,250/- and annual contribution would be Rs.27,000/-. The multiplier in respect of a person of the age of 25 years is ‘17’, as per Schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act. The loss of dependency to the family would be Rs.4,59,000/-. Non-pecuniary benefits to the extent of Rs.20,000/- are permissible under law. The total compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased would be Rs.4,79,000/-. Out of it, appellant No.1, wife of the deceased, is allotted Rs.2,09,000/-, the parents of the deceased, appellant Nos.2 and 3, Rs.1,00,000/- each and the sister of the deceased, who was unmarried at the relevant point of time, Rs.70,000/-. Since appellant Nos.4 and 5 were married, they are not entitled for any compensation. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6%. 18. The appeal is allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.