Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nokala Venkataramana And Another vs Anala Veera Venkata Naga Rama Krishna ... on 4 September, 2019
Author: M. Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
MACMA.No.80 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are claimants filed the present appeal against the award dated 12-09-2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.578 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Amalapuram, whereby and whereunder the Original Petition filed by the claimants was dismissed.
For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the Original Petition before the Tribunal.
The claimants filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of life of one Nookala Satyanarayana in a motor accident that occurred on 26.06.2003. On the date of the incident i.e. on 26-06-2003, the deceased Nookala Satyanarayana was going on his cycle to Karpa Chinthalapudi from Mummidivaram. While he was coming on the side of the road and when he reached near the check post of Karpachinthalapudi at about 9.45 PM, a Bajaj scooter bearing No.AP-5-AA-8828 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cycle of the deceased. The deceased fell down and received injuries. Immediately, the deceased was shifted to Dhanvanthari Naidu Hospital, Amalapuram and thereafter he was shifted to Care Emergency Hospital and later he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kakinada. While undergoing treatment, he died on 05.07.2003 at 4.10 P.M., the 1st respondent was riding the scooter. He was the owner of the scooter. The scooter was insured with the 2nd respondent. As the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the 1st respondent in riding the scooter.
2 MGR, J MACMA.No.80 of 2008 The petitioners being the wife and son of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the respondents 1 and 2.
The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and stating that the deceased did not die of the injuries sustained in the accident, and that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.
Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration.
1) Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed?
3) To what relief?
During the course of trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On the other hand, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.5 were marked on behalf of the respondents.
The Tribunal, considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence of Exs.A.1 to A.3-FIR, charge sheet and the inquest report, held that the scooter of the 1st respondent is not proved to have been involved in the accident and that the material placed before the court is sufficient to hold that the scooter of the 1st respondent bearing No.AP-5-AA-8828 was not involved in the accident. The Tribunal also held that the motorcycle or a scooter whose registration number and whose rider are not known to the deceased. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the claimants failed 3 MGR, J MACMA.No.80 of 2008 to prove that the 1st respondent had driven the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Accordingly, Issue No.1 was answered against the petitioners. The Tribunal further held that since the 1st respondent is not proved to be the person driving the scooter and the scooter is not proved to have been involved in the accident, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be made liable to pay compensation for the death of the deceased in the accident. The Tribunal held that the petitioners are not entitled to compensation from the respondents. However, the Tribunal given liberty to the petitioners to claim compensation as a case of hit and run if it is permissible under law. Accordingly, the O.P. was dismissed. Challenging the same, the appeal came to be filed.
Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the Tribunal grossly erred in considering the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, who are eye-witnesses and committed illegality in refusing to accept their testimony. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the submissions of the counsel and on perusal of the material on record coupled with the evidence available on record, this court found that one Tadi Nageswara Rao, the de facto complainant, made a complaint to the police on 28.06.2003, based on which, a crime was registered in FIR.No.61 of 2003, stating that on 26-06-2003 at 10.00A.M. he received a phone call from PW.2-Venkata Krishna Manikumar @ Bujji, that a scooter in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased cycle from behind and that the deceased received 4 MGR, J MACMA.No.80 of 2008 injuries and that on receiving the phone call he went to the spot and later he taken the deceased to the hospital, but he was not examined. On perusal of the material on record, Ex.A-1-copy of FIR, Ex.A.2-copy of charge sheet and Ex.A.4-copy of Post Mortem Certificate, this court came to the conclusion, that as per Ex.A.4-Post Mortem Certificate, the injuries sustained by the deceased were not caused by the hitting of the scooter and the deceased received multiple injuries on several parts and that the evidence of PW.2 and 3 not trustworthy to be considered. The Tribunal rightly held that the 1st respondent was not proved to be the person driving the scooter and since the scooter was not proved to have been involved in the accident, the respondents 1 and 2 cannot be made liable to pay any compensation in connection with the death of the deceased in an accident. The conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal are just, reasonable and well founded and the same do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court, and hence, the appeal is totally devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
________________ M. GANGA RAO, J Date: 04-09-2019 Ksn