2009 Supreme(AP) 667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
A. GOPAL REDDY AND B. CHANDRA KUMAR, JJ.
National Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad
Versus
Syeda Najmunnissa and others
MA CMA MP No.7499 of 2008 and MA CMA No.3175 of 2005
Decided on : Twenty Fourth Day of September, 2009
T. Mahender Rao, Counsel for the Appellant in both the cases; B. Vijaysen Reddy, Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in both the cases.
Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988—Sections 168 and 173—Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 41, Rule 27—Accident claim proceedings—Production of additional evidence—Additional evidence can be allowed in ends of justice—However, additional evidence cannot be adduced without fulfilling conditions therefor—Insurance company cannot be allow to adduce additional evidence because claim proceedings are summary proceedings and claims Tribunal has to follow summary procedure—Appeal dismissed.
B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J :- This Appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, Osmangunj, Hyderabad, against the judgment in OP No.898 of 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, awarding compensation of Rs.15,37,000/- to the claimants, who filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the death of one Syed Abdul Wahab Quadri, who died in a motor accident.
2. The sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The first claimant is the wife, the second and third claimants are the minor sons and fourth and fifth claimants are the minor daughters of late Syed Abdul Wahab Quadri (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased'). On 23.5.1999 the deceased was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP 12 3237 from Bahadurpura to Tadbund on his way to Idgah Dargah, Zoo Park. When the deceased reached Tadbund Cross Roads at about 7-30 p.m., the Tata Diesel lorry bearing No.AP 11 U 6355, owned by the first respondent, insured with the third respondent, being driven by the second respondent Mohd. Osman, came from opposite direction and moved towards extreme right side and dashed against Mahendra Jeep bearing No.AP 22D 6669 and thereafter the scooter of the deceased and also the RTC Bus bearing No.AP 9Z 7898, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries resulting in multiple fractures and the jeep, bus and scooter were damaged. The deceased was immediately shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he was treated as in-patient for two days i.e., from 23.5.1999 to 25.5.1999. Then, he was shifted to King Koti Government Hospital and was operated and treated there till 17.7.1999. Then he was shifted to NIMS, Punjagutta, Hyderabad. Again he was operated. The deceased was confined to bed for six months three weeks. However, while undergoing treatment in NIMS, Hyderabad, he succumbed to the injuries on 16.12.1999. The claimants had spent about Rs.6 lakhs towards medical expenses of the deceased.
4. The deceased had been working as Manager for M/s. Harshad Ahmed Khan, Rashid Ahmed Khan, Azfar Ahmed Khan and Shaista Khan and was looking after their affairs and cultivating their lands to an extent of Acs.104-34 guntas in Sy.Nos.339/A, 340/A, 340/B, 341 to 348, 355/A, 355/B, 356/B, 358, 522 and 523 situated at Farook Nagar, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. There was an orchard in the said land. The deceased was paid an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards his salary. He was also given 1/3rd of the net income from the agricultural income besides the salary. He used to earn Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- per annum towards 1/3rd of the net income by managing the cultivation of the above lands. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, the claimants are put to mental agony. They have lost the only source of their livelihood. The deceased used to spent about Rs.4,000/- per month and used to give Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- to his family.
5. The driver of the bus P. Krishna Reddy lodged a complaint with the police, Bahadurpura, basing upon which a case in Crime No.80 of 1999 was registered for the offence under Section 337 of IPC. But subsequently, the section of law was altered to 304-A of IPC. The second respondent driver of the offending lorry was tried in e.e.No.50 of 2000 on the file of the II Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He pleaded guilty and accordingly he was convicted and sentenced.
6. The claimants contended that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent and the vehicle was insured with the third respondent-insurance company, the respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. They claimed a total compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-.
7. The respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident respectively, did not