B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE order of dismissal of the claim petition by the Motor Accident Claims tribunal, Nizamabad in O. P. No. 243 of 1988 dated 12-6-1990 is questioned by the claimants who lodged the claim under Sec. 110-A of the M. V. Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- alleging that their bread earner k. Ramaiah was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused (due) to the rash and negligent driving of the bus AAZ 7347 by its driver on 7-9-1988 wherein he sustained injuries and died on 17-9-1988. The claim was resisted denying the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and entitlement of the claimants to get the compensation and the cause of the death being injuries due to the accident. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased having died ten days after the accident without there being a proof between the death and the injuries, there was no reason to treat the case as one of death to award compensation to the claimants. At the same (time) a finding was recorded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver.

( 2 ) THE learned Counsel for the claimants contends that the Tribunal instead of making use of the materials on record viz, Ex. A-4, the inquest report showing the cause of death as the accident and instead of giving opportunity to the claimants to produce materials, has come to the conclusion that for want of materials the death due to the accident is not established. According to him, the dismissal of the petition is unjustified.

( 3 ) SMT. Vaijayanthi, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Corporation has contended that when the claimants did not produce necessary materials to establish the cause of the death being the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident, the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss the petition.

( 4 ) IN so far as the finding of negligence is concerned regarding the cause of the accident, there is no reason to question it as there is neither any cross-objection or cross-appeal filed by the respondents. Ex. A-4, the certified copy of the inquest report indicates that the death was due to the injuries suffered by the deceased in the accident. In spite of it, the Tribunal held that there was no material to prove the cause of the death being the accident. There is a clear indication in the Judgment of the Tribunal that post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased, however it was not produced. The learned Counsel for the claimants has shown the certified copy of the post-mortem report regarding which Smt. Vaijayanthi has no serious objection to go through and form impression about the correctness of the inquest report. At this stage, it may be necessary to point out that the Tribunal, dealing with the claim petitions, is not a Court and it is a creature of Administrative law dealing with the social piece of legislation to ameliorate the victims of the accident and the legal representatives of the victims. It is well known that the technical rules of evidence are not applicable in such proceedings although the spirit and the principle behind it may be adopted as far as possible to meet the ends of justice. There are instances wherein mere production of the documents are being taken as proof to look into such materials to know the truth of the matter. Particularly when there is an indication in the Judgment that there was post-mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased, there was no harm in looking into the certified copy of the post-mortem report produced by the learned counsel for the claimants, which Smt. Vaijayanthi, the learned Counsel for the respondents had the opportunity to look into. When the object is to achieve the ends of justice which is subserved by adopting such a procedure, this Court will not be in error in forming an impression with the contents of such a post-mortem report to ensure that the contents of Ex. A-4 are correct or not. Having done so, this Cou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document