The procedure applicable to Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunals does not require notice to be taken out to a party respondent who has remained ex parte in the lower Court.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the judgment of a learned single judge in A. A. O. No. 1045 of 1984, dismissing it by order dated 30-11-1988 confirming the judgment of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge, Guntur) in Original Petition No. 482 of 1982, dated 19-3-1984.

( 2 ) THE claimant, appellants herein, are the parents of the deceased boy-aged 17 years who died in an accident on 22-5-1982 at about 8. 00 pm. While the deceased was going on cycle, the lorry APK 2045 proceeding from Koliipara to tenali, owned by respondent No. 1, dashed against the cycle at Nandivelugu village on Guntur - Koliipara road and the deceased fell down and died instantaneously. The appellants herein filed claim petition alleging that the death of the boy was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2 - driver. Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured contested the claim petition. Respondent Nos. l and 3 took the plea that the vehicle had dashed against a poll and the death of the deceased was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence held that rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 2 has not been proved and dismissed the claim. In the appeal before the High Court, a learned single judge of this Court considered only the evidence of P. W. 3 and rejected it as being not trustworthy. The learned Judge held that there is no word in the evidence that the deceased fell under the wheels of the vehicle and that any part of the vehicle ran over him; obviously, P. W3 is a set-up witness.

( 4 ) WE have gone through the evidence of P. W. 3 and of P. Ws. l and 2 who are the parents of the deceased. The evidence of P. W. 3 cannot be disregarded, for, it has been specifically stated in his evidence that he saw the accident and that he has specifically stated that "the accident occurred at about 8. 00 pm. The deceased was going on a cycle. A lorry bearing No. APK 2045 was coming in speed and he did not blow horn. The place of accident is very busy, hit the deceased and he fell down. He died on the spot. "

( 5 ) THIS version of P. W. 3 was not challenged in the cross-examination. There was not even a suggestion to the effect that P. W3 did not witness the occurrence. His evidence was rejected merely on the ground that he was not examined in the criminal case filed against the driver which ended in acquittal. We do not think that merely because the witness was not examined in the criminal case his evidence can be rejected. We are fortified in this view by and decision of this Court reported in APSRTC vs. Sravaji Aruna. We therefore, accept the evidence of P. W. 3 that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by respondent No. 2 driver. It is significant in this case that the driver of the lorry, who is respondent No. 2, remained ex parte. He was not examined by the respondents to speak as to how the accident actually happended. The owner of the lorry, respondent No. 1, who examined himself as R. W. 1, asserted that the accident was not due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2. But, admittedly, he was not an eye witness. We do not want to place any reliance on his evidence. In the circumstances, we hold that the death of the deceased boy was due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by respondent No. 2.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for respondent No 3 raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal placing reliance on a division Bench decision of this Court reported in Sharifa Bee vs. APSRTC* which held as follows:"it is necessary to take out notices to a party respondent who has remained ex parte in the lower Court, by impleading him in the appeal as a respondent, for the purpose of a decision in the main appeal. . . . . . . . . "

( 7 ) IN this case, respondent No

Click Here to Read the rest of this document