NEELAM SANJIVA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) CLAIMANTS in O. P. No. 403/89 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-1 Addl. District Judge, Guntur, preferred this appeal.

( 2 ) ANJAIAH and K. Krishnaiah were returning as fare paid passengers from sattenapalli after selling chilly seeds on 26-9-89 by lorry AAT 4666 which was coming with a load of napa slabs from Macherla to Guntur. There were also others travelling by the same lorry. The lorry met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting in the death of Anjaiah and k. Krishnaiah on the spot. Wife, child and parents of the deceased preferred the above O. P. claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The claim was resisted by the respondents. The Tribunal, after due enquiry, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 55,000/- against the owner of the vehicle and dismissed the petition as against the insurer finding that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as fare paid passenger only. Aggrieved by the said finding and consequent order dismissing the claim as against the insurer, claimants preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) SRI D V. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the tribunal erred in holding that the evidence to the effect that the deceased accompanied his goods in the lorry cannot be accepted in the absence of plea made in the claim petition and he further submits that the evidence of P. VVs. l and 2 is sufficient to establish that the deceased accompanied his goods of four bags of fertilisers in the lorry at the time of the accident and consequently the insurer is bound to indemnify the liability of the owner to pay the compensation to the claimants.

( 4 ) THE claimants did not plead in their petition that the deceased accompanied his goods in the lorry, but they pleaded that he travelled in the lorry as passenger only. However, during the trial, they filed a petition to amend the pleading to the effect that the deceased accompanied his goods of fertilisers in the lorry. But, it was dismissed and the matter rested there.

( 5 ) A claim petition is not a plaint as contemplated under C. P. C. FORM cid is the form of application for compensation prescribed under Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. All the claims under Motor vehicles Act for compensation in case of fault liability have to be made in the said FORM CID. The claimants are supposed to furnish the particulars required in the format to the best of their knowledge. Column 26 of the FORM cid relates to any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. If any necessary and helpful information in the disposal of the claim is not furnished in this column, it might be that the claimants are not aware of such information by the date of the claim petition. If they are furnishing such information subsequently during the enquiry in the evidence, veracity of that evidence has to be appreciated in the light of the explanation for non-furnishing of information earlier in Column 26 of the form CID. The claim petition apparently is not a plaint and therefore strict rules of pleadings in Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked in considering the claim petition. This view finds support in the following Division Bench decisions of Bombay and Karnataka High Courts. Bessarlal Laxmichand chirawala vs. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay and others and basappa and another vs. K. H. Sreenivasa Reddy and others. For the above reasons, the evidence adduced for the claimants that the deceased travelled with his goods in the lorry cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there was no specific plea to that effect. However, absence of this information in Column 26 of FORM CID Is a factor to be considered while appreciating the evidence of P. Ws. l and 2 that the deceased accompanied his goods in the lorry.

( 6 ) P. W. I is wife of the deceased. She had no pers

Click Here to Read the rest of this document