IMPORTANT POINT
Death in motor accident - It is duty of investigating agency to find out identity of offending car and driver and take action in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT :

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

1. Delays condoned. I.A.s No. 374022020 and 374052020 are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

3. The present appeal takes exception to the Final Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2019 in M.A.C.M.A. No. 77 of 2017¹ [Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal] (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’) passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 1-insurance company was allowed by setting aside the award dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT) in M.V.O.P. No. 458 of 2011, to the extent of imposition of liability on the respondent no. 1-insurance company.

BRIEF FACTS

4. On 20.03.2011, Mr. K. Yadagiri (the deceased) was riding his Bajaj scooter bearing Registration No. AP 28 AG 8602 and going from Habsiguda to his residence via Taranaka. At about 930 PM, when he reached Taranaka (HUDA Complex), his scooter was hit on the backside by a red coloured Hyundai Verna car bearing Registration No. AP 29 AE 3763 that was in high speed and being driven negligently. Due to the accident, Mr. K. Yadagiri suffered multiple injuries and was taken to Gandhi Hospital through a 108 ambulance where he later succumbed to his injuries. In this regard, First Information Report No. 1562011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’) under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 came to be registered on the next day, i.e., 21.03.2011.

5. The appellants-claimants being the widow and children of the deceased filed M.V.O.P. No. 458 of 2011 before the MACT claiming a compensation of Rs. 23,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Three Lakhs). The appellants examined three witnesses and submitted twelve documents. The respondent no. 1-insurance company did not examine any witness but submitted a single document viz. the insurance policy. The MACT also examined the Investigating Officer as a Court Witness. After appreciating the material before it, the MACT allowed the petition with costs against the respondents jointly and severally and awarded a compensation of Rs. 33,63,350/- (Rupees Thirty-Three Lakhs Sixty-Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty) with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 07.09.2011 till realization.

6. The respondent no. 1-insurance company filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 77 of 2017 before the High Court contending, inter alia, that the registration number of the offending vehicle was unknown on the date when the FIR was lodged. The High Court vide the Impugned Order allowed the appeal and set aside the Award qua the insurance company. While doing so, the High Court noted, inter alia, that PW2 (an eye-witness) maintained a studied silence for two and a half months even though he had written down the registration number of the offending vehicle, and hence his testimony was unreliable and the appellants-claimants had failed to establish that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in disbelieving the testimony of PW2, solely due to the delay in recording his statement and that he was brought to the MACT for recording of evidence by the claimants and was not a summoned witness. It is submitted that the police investigation corroborated his version and his statement was also backed by another eyewitness, Mr. I. Vasudeva Reddy (paan-shop owner). It was submitted that in Goutam Joardar vs. State of West Bengal, (2022) 17 SCC 549, the Court has held that delay in recording testimony alone does not discredit the witness. Further, it is common practice in Civil Courts, especially in some States that many a times, to avoid delay, the Courts ask the parties to call the witnesses themselves instead of issuing summons therefor. Thus, there was