Karnataka High Court
Smt Jayamma W/O Late D. Ramaiah, vs Apsrtc on 26 February, 2013
Author: N.K. Patil
Bench: N.K. Patil
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013
: PRESENT :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPA RAO
M.F.A.NO. 5473 OF 2009 (MV)
Between:
1. Smt. Jayamma,
Aged about 47 years,
W/o. Late D. Ramaiah.
2. D. Balakrishna,
Aged about 22 years,
S/o. Late D. Ramaiah.
3. Kum. Dhanalakshmi,
Aged about 17 years,
D/o. Late D. Ramaiah,
A3 is minor, rep. by A1, natural
Guardian and mother on
Behalf of A3.
All are R/o. D.NO.215,
Sai Nilaya, 3rd Floor, 5th Cross,
5th Main, Ganganagar Layout,
Bangalore-32.
... Appellants
(By Shri. G.Ramana, Advocate)
2
And:
A.P.S.R.T.C.,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Musheerabad, Hyderabad-20.
(Srikalahasti Depot)
... Respondent
(By Shri. D.Vijay Kumar, Advocate)
******
This MFA is filed U/S 173(1) of MV Act against the
Judgment and Award dated: 18/03/2009 passed in MVC
No.3327/2007 on the file of the VII Additional Judge, Court
of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
3, Bangalore (SCCH-3), dismissing the claim petition for
compensation.
This MFA coming on for Hearing, this day,
N.K. PATIL. J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimants is directed against the impugned judgment and award dated 18th March 2009, passed in MVC No.3327/2007, by the VII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Bangalore (SCCH-3), (for short, 'Tribunal'), seeking to set aside the same and to award reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased D. Ramaiah in the motor vehicle accident, out of and in the course of his employment .
3
2. The facts in brief are that, the claimants are the wife and children of deceased D. Ramaiah. They filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of `20,00,000/-, against the respondent Corporation, contending that at about 4:00 P.M, on 04-05-2006, the deceased was attending his duty at APSRTC Garage at Sree Kalahasti. At that time, the driver of the Bus had parked the Bus on the pit and on seeing the same, the deceased D. Ramaiah went to the pit and was checking the radiator by standing underneath the front of the Bus on a pit for repair. While he was checking the radiator, the driver of the Bus, negligently without taking due care and caution suddenly started and moved the Bus rashly towards front side resulting in the front side inner iron parts hitting the deceased D. Ramaiah on his head, neck, upper lip and other parts of the body. On account of grievous injuries sustained, the deceased was immediately shifted to Area Hospital, Sree Kalahasti, for treatment. After first aid, he was shifted to SVRRGG 4 Hospital, Tirupathi for treatment. Thereafter he was shifted to SVIMS Hospital, Tirupati on the same day. But, unfortunately, in spite of the best medical treatment, the deceased did not survive and he succumbed to the grievous injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident at about 8:05 P.M on 06-05- 2006, after two days, that arose out of and in the course of his employment.
3. On account of the death of the deceased, the claimants filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation as stated above against the respondent/Corporation. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 18th March 2009. Upon notice to the respondent Corporation, it was represented by an Advocate and he filed the written statement in detail, stating that the claim petition itself filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable in the eye of law and fact of case. Further, it was the specific case of the Corporation before the Tribunal that the claimants have 5 already received compensation of a sum of `2,92,400/- towards final settlement under Workmen's Compensation Act before the Workmen's Commissioner, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, they submitted that the claim petition was not maintainable. Further, the learned counsel appearing for Corporation denied the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased and also denied that the criminal case is lodged against the driver of the Bus. They also denied that the claimants have spent a sum of Rupees One Lakh towards medical expenses and `50,000/- towards transportation of dead body. They also pleaded that the claimants have suppressed the material fact of filing the claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool. Further, the Corporation also contended that, since the claimants are not permanent residents of Bangalore City, but are residing at Madanapalli Taluk of Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try 6 the case. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for its consideration.
"1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 04/05/06 at about 4:00 P.M. on Sree Kalahasti, RTC Depot, while the deceased Ramaiah was cheking the radiator of the Bus, the said driver of the Bus bearing No.AP- 28Z55 start the Bus negligently and dashed to the deceased and he died on 6/5/2006 in the accident?
2. Whether petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, at what quantum and against whom petitioner is entitled to?
3. What order or award?"
To substantiate the claim of the claimants, they examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13. On behalf of the Corporation, the officer of the Corporation was examined as RW1 and he got marked Exs.R1 to R7. The Tribunal, after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on behalf of both 7 parties, dismissed the claim petition, holding that the claimants have already filed petition under Workmen's Compensation Act and in pursuance of the said petition, learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool (Andhra Pradesh) has passed the award and compensation amount is already paid to claimant No.1 and under the circumstances, in view of the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepali Girishbhai Soni and others Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd., the claim petition would not be maintainable and the claimants are not entitled for any compensation in the case and accordingly, answered issue No.2 in the negative. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition before the Tribunal, the appellants are in appeal before this Court seeking to set aside the same and to award just and reasonable compensation for the death of the deceased D Ramaiah in the motor vehicle accident, that arose out of and in the course of his employment. 8
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for claimants and the learned counsel appearing for Corporation, for considerable length of time.
5. Learned counsel appearing for Corporation vehemently submitted that the Tribunal, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, by assigning valid, cogent and convincing reasons at paragraphs 6 and 7 of its judgment has passed a well considered judgment and interference in the same is uncalled for. Further, to substantiate his submission, he drew our specific attention to the original records available on file and took us through the documentary evidence at Ex.R2, the proceedings of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool Zone, Kurnool, dated 29th November 2006 in R.C.No.C/2856/2006, wherein the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants herein and passed the award, awarding compensation of a sum of 9 `2,92,400/- and the said amount already been deposited by the Corporation before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool. All these material information have been suppressed by the claimants both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court. Therefore, he submits that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed claim petition filed by the claimants and hence, interference in the same is totally uncalled for.
6. After critical evaluation of the entire material available on file, including the original records placed before us and also after hearing the learned counsel for the Corporation, it emerges that, the occurrence of accident and the resultant death of the deceased D. Ramaiah in the motor vehicle accident, that arose out of and in the course of his employment are not in dispute. On microscopic evaluation of the entire original records available on file, particularly Ex.R2 at blue ink page 105, it can be seen that the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Deputy Commissioner of 10 Labour, Kurnool Zone, Kurnool has passed the award, awarding compensation of `2,92,400/-, payable to the dependents of the deceased workman, Shri.D. Ramaiah on account of his fatal accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment on 06/05/2006. Further, it reveals from the said Ex.R2, the proceedings of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation that on the basis of the report obtained from the Labour Officer, Tirupati, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has apportioned the said amount of `2,92,400/- amongst the dependents. Out of `2,92,400/-, a sum of `1,25,000/- is directed to be paid to the wife of deceased, D.Jayamma as immediate relief and a sum of `75,000/- is directed to be invested in Fixed Deposit Account of Vijaya Bank, Kurnool for a period of three years and to be renewed periodically and liberty was reserved to her to withdraw the interest accrued thereon, which was to be paid to her by MO/DD once in every quarter with the expense of the Bank. Further, a sum of `52,400/- is ordered to be 11 paid to Smt.D. Gangulamma, the mother of the deceased as total relief and remaining sum of `40,000/- was directed to be kept in Fixed Deposit in the name of Shri.D. Balakrishna, the son of the deceased, in Vijaya Bank, Kurnool, for a period of five years. Thereafter, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has written a letter dated 4th July 2006 vide Ex.R3, to the Depot Manager of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Srikalahasthi, requesting them to make payment of the said sum by way of Demand Draft in favour of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool, payable at State Bank of India, Kurnool. Pursuant to the said letter, the Corporation has deposited the said sum with the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kurnool, by its letter dated 28th July 2006 vide Cheque bearing No.422945 dated 25th July 2006. Therefore, after going through these documentary evidence, it is crystal clear that the claimants have suppressed the material fact both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court that they have 12 been awarded compensation of `2,92,400/- by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for the death of the deceased workman out of and during the course of employment. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel appearing for Corporation, when the claimants have received the compensation from the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation on account of the death of deceased D. Ramaiah out of and during the course of employment, they cannot, once again, file a claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation on account of the death of the deceased. It is interesting to note that the claimants have not whispered a word anywhere either in the claim petition or in the appeal filed before this Court. They have deliberately suppressed the material information before this Court. When the claimants have evidently filed the claim petition before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kurnool, claiming compensation and got compensation, they are not entitled to once again, file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor 13 Vehicles Act. The same is misconceived and cannot be sustained.
7. Further, it can be seen that the documentary evidence relied upon by the Tribunal, for dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimants, viz. Ex.R4 series (in all 5 receipts) are the receipts in respect of some other claim on account of the death of the deceased and are not relevant to the receipts received from the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Kurnool. However, the fact remains that the claimants have filed claim petition before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Kurnool and have been awarded compensation of `2,92,400/- and apportioned the same among all the claimants, as stated in preceding paragraphs and the relevant documents are very much available in the original records at Ex.R2, ink page No.105 and Ex.R1, ink page 122. Therefore, if the said aspect is taken into consideration, then the claimants are not entitled to the relief sought for by them either before the Tribunal or before this Court. 14
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Office to draw award, accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE BMV*