Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Katukuri Raghavareddy And Ors. on 24 December, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1989AP33, AIR 1989 ANDHRA PRADESH 33, (1989) ACJ 448 (1990) 1 TAC 77, (1990) 1 TAC 77
Author: K. Ramaswamy
Bench: K. Ramaswamy
ORDER
1. Sri Narayana Reddy learned counsel for the respondent 1 raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the revision. He contends that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, constituted under Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) for short, 'the Act', is not a court subordinate to High Court amenable to jurisdiction under Section 115 of the C.P.C. In-support thereof, he placed reliance on Revanappa v. Guderao (1) . Admittedly under the Act, there is no special procedure provided for disposal of the O.Ps. The District Court is constituted as a Tribunal to decide the claims under the Act. The procedure under the C.P.C. is to be followed It is now well established that no special procedure has been prescribed and the claims under special statutes are to be adjudicated by regular court as a Tribunal, all the incidents provided under the Code of Civil Procedure would follow. This view has been consistently followed by this court starting from The Public Prosecutor v. Ramayya(2) 1975 Cri LJ 144 (FB) and catena of decisions subsequent thereto. Ramayya's ratio was approved by the Supreme Court in Thakur Das v. State of Madhya Pradesh, . In Ramayya's case as stated earlier, the District Judge is constituted as a regular Tribunal but not as persons designata under the Act. He has to follow the procedure prescribed in trying the cases, under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, the Tribunal is a court subordinate to High Court and amenable to revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C. The ratio on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel, viz., Revanappa's case (supra), I am unable to accede and with due respect, I dissent from the view taken in that case. Accordingly, I hold that the CRPs. are maintainable.
2. Sri Venkat Reddy, learned standing counsel for the insurance company, contends that the capacity of the van is seven. Whereas the passengers carried in it were seventeen. The deceased have contributed for the accident and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to the full compensation but only a proportionate rate. Unfortunately, no plea was taken before the Tribunal below; no issue has been cast and no evidence is recorded in that regard. Therefore, for the first time, this point cannot be urged in this court.
3. It is next contended that the deaths were on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver and also due to overloading. The Tribunal below has considered the entire evidence and recorded the finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving, as a result, precious lives have been lost. This is a finding of fact based on appreciation of evidence and there is no illegality or error of jurisdiction, warranting interference.
4. The CRPs are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.