C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) WHILE travelling in the van bearing no. AP 02 T 1458 belonging to the second respondent and insured with the third respondent, first respondent received injuries as a result of the collision between the said van and a bus belonging to the appellant. Alleging that the said accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, first respondent filed a claim petition seeking compensation of rs. 75,000/- from respondents 2, 3 and the appellant. Second respondent chose to remain exparte both before the tribunal and this Court. Third respondent and the appellant filed counters contesting the claim petition. In support of his case, first respondent examined himself as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-5. Third respondent did not adduce evidence, either oral or documentary on its behalf. Appellant examined the driver of the bus involved in the accident as R. W. 1 but did not adduce any documentary evidence. Holding that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of R. W. 1, the Tribunal awarded rs. 52,186/- as compensation to the first respondent against the appellant and exonerated respondents 2 and 3 from liability. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is preferred by the third respondent before the Tribunal.

( 2 ) THE following points arise for consideration in this appeal: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant i. e. , r. W. 1 or due to the negligence of the driver of the van belonging to the second respondent? (2) To what compensation is the first respondent entitled to?

( 3 ) POINT No. 1: Mainly on the basis that r. W. 1 was charge sheeted by the police in connection with the said accident and since the first respondent as P. W. 1 also stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R. W. 1, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus of the appellant by R. W. 1. Merely because the police charge-sheeted R. W. 1 it cannot be presumed that the allegations therein are true. The allegations in the charge-sheet have to be proved by adducing oral evidence. It is significant to note that ex. A-2, certified copy of the charge-sheet, does not show that the investigating officer took pains to visit the scene of accident and verify as to how actually the accident took place. He did not even take pains to conduct a panchanama of the scene of accident and draw a sketch of the scene of accident, though the driver of the van died in the accident. In fatal accident cases panchanama and sketch of the scene of offence are very important because they give first hand information as to where actually the accident took place and if there are skid marks and on which side of the road the vehicle involved in the accident, was there at the time of accident and after the accident and would assist the court in coming to a just decision. In this case the investigating Officer solely, basing on the statements of witnesses recorded by him, seems to have charge-sheeted R. W. 1 which is but a table investigation.

( 4 ) THE evidence of P. W. 1 is that the driver of the van, on seeing the bus coming in the opposite direction, took the van behind a stationary bus, and at that time the bus being driven by R. W. 1 dashed against the van. The recitals in Ex. A-1 (FIR) show that the driver of the van in which the 1st respondent was travelling received injuries on his legs and other parts of the body. According to the allegations in the chargesheet, the driver of the van succumbed to those injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital. The evidence of R. W 1 is that the driver of the van came in the opposite direction of his bus at a high speed and dashed against the bus being driven by him. That versions appears to be true, as the version of the first respondent (the sole witness examined on his behalf) that the van dr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document