C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by 2nd and 3rd respondents in O. P. No. 255 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad, filed by respondents 1 to 8 seeking the compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- from the 9th respondent and appellants who are the driver, insurer and owner respectively of the lorry bearing No. AHH-2201 which caused an accident resulting in the death of nagappa, husband of 1 st respondent and father of respondents 2 to 6 and son of respondents 7 and 8 allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the 9th respondent. The claimants examined two witnesses on their behalf as P. Ws. 1 and 2, including the 1st respondent as P. W. 1 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-7. 9th respondent and 2nd appellant chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal. First appellant who filed a counter putting respondents 1 to 8 to proof of the allegations in the petition did not adduce evidence either oral or documentary. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 9th respondent, awarded rs. 1,90,0007- as compensation to respondents 1 to 8. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded against them, the insurer and owner of the lorry involved in the accident have preferred this appeal and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to them the claimants i. e. respondents 1 to 5 preferred cross-objections.

( 2 ) APPEAL against 9th respondent was dismissed for default on 28-8-2002 for nonpayment of process. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 8.

( 3 ) THE points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: (i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 9th respondent? (ii) To what compensation respondents 1 to 8 are entitled?

( 4 ) POINT (i): The evidence of P. W. 1 is not relevant for this point, because she, admittedly, was not a witness to the accident. P. W. 2 who is examined as a witness to the accident admitted during cross-examination, that police did not examine him in connection with the accident. Respondents 1 to 8 failed to explain as to how they came to know that P. W. 2 was a witness to the accident and called him as a witness on their behalf. Even, P. W. 2 did not state as to how respondents 1 to 8 came to know that he was a witness to the accident involving the deceased. Respondents 1 to 8 did not even file a list of witnesses. So it is difficult to believe the evidence of P. W. 2 that he was a witness to the accident. That apart the evidence of P. W. 2 that the lorry dashed against the deceased when he was waiting at the bus stand for a bus is diametrically opposite to the allegations in the F. I. R. (Ex. A-1) and the panchanama of inquest (Ex. A-2) which show that the deceased while trying to board the lorry AHH 2201 had fallen down and was run-over by the rear wheels of the lorry. So I do not wish to take the evidence of P. W. 2 into consideration for deciding this point.

( 5 ) IT is no doubt true that nobody connected with Exs. A-1 and A-2 are examinedly the respondents 1 to 8, but the allegations therein show that the deceased while trying to board the lorry had fallen down. In Ex. A-6, charge sheet filed by the police against the 9th respondent in connection with the accident involving the deceased, it is stated that the 9th respondent, without observing that the deceased was boarding the lorry started the lorry and caused the death of the deceased. Since 9th respondent must have permitted the deceased to board the lorry, the deceased must have tried to board the lorry from the rear side of the lorry. When the 9th respondent permitted the deceased to get into the lorry, he ought to have started the lorry only after the deceased boarded the lorry, but 9th respondent seems to have moved the lorry even before the deceased boarded it i. e. while the deceased was boarding it and so he had fallen down and was run over by the r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document