Subbanna vs. Rahamathullah Beig

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.887 and 969 OF 2004

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals are preferred by the claimants, aggrieved by separate awards, dated 24-09-2003, in O.P. Nos.115 and 113 of 2001, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – Additional District Judge, Hindupur(for short 'the Tribunal'), as their claims for award of compensation of Rs.30,000/ and Rs.50,000/- made by each of them under Section 166 of the Act, were dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in O.P. before the Tribunal.

3. The facts in O.P.No.115 of 2001 would suffice for the purpose of disposal of both these appeals.

On 29.02.2000, both the petitioners boarded lorry bearing registration No.KA 01/340 coming from Penukonda side and when it reached near Somandepalli National Highway No.7, a truck bearing No.83/2110M belonging to Defence coming from Bangalore side and driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the front portion of the lorry, due to which, it burst and resulted in fire. Consequently, the truck was gutted and resulted in the instant death of the driver and injuries to all the inmates. The Station House Officer, Somandepalli, registered a crime against the truck driver.

4. Respondent No.1, who is owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 insurance company contested the claim requiring the petitioners to prove the averments levelled by them as to their entitlement for compensation.

5. The tribunal framed three identical issues in each petition.

6. The petitioners respectively examined as P.W.1 in both the cases. F.I.R. copy is marked as Ex.A1 and wound certificate is marked as Ex.A2.

7. The tribunal, on appraisal of evidence on record, held issue No.1 in favour of the petitioners. On issue No.2, while finding that F.I.R. does not contain the names of the petitioners herein, it disbelieved their evidence and rejected their claims. It is that order, which has driven the petitioners to prefer the instant appeal, contending that the tribunal overlooked the fact that on being referred by the police concerned, they were treated by the Civil Assistant Surgeon of the Government hospital for the injuries they sustained and it ought to have appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and awarded Rs.30,000/- to each of them basing on Ex.A2.

8. Heard Sri P.Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Srinivasarao Vutla, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

9. Perused the order impugned and the evidence on record.

10. The fact that both the petitioners were travelling in the lorry bearing registration No.KA 01/340 stood proved since nothing adverse is elicited in their cross examination done by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-insurance company before the tribunal. Admittedly, the petitioners were travelling in the said lorry, which is registered as goods vehicle and the same is not meant for transportation of passengers. However, keeping in view Ex.A2 in each of these cases, which is wound certificate, the medical officer,

who treated the petitioners opined that they sustained simple injuries, though, the description of injuries is not occurring in Ex.A2, still, a sum of Rs.3,000/- can be granted to each of the petitioners keeping in view, the endorsement of the medical officer that the injuries sustained by them are simple in nature.

11. Now, coming to the liability of respondent No.2-insurance company, as respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte before the tribunal, respondent No.2-insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability as the petitioners were travelling in a goods vehicle.

12. Both the appeals, therefore, are partly allowed against respondent No.1 while dismissing the appeals against respondent No.2. There shall be no order as to costs.

13. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these appeals, stand disposed of.

A. SHANKAR NARAYANA, J

_____________________

July 25, 2014. pab