Back
2023 Supreme(AP) 619
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Rangali Satyavathi, VSP Dist & Others –Appellant
Versus
Boddu Ramanna Dora, VSP Dist Ano – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1123 of 2013
Decided on : 04-07-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : JAYANTI S C SEKHAR
For the Respondent: N PARAMESWARA REDDY
Delay in lodging FIR should not be considered fatal for motor accident claim cases if satisfactory reasons are provided. The court also emphasized the assessment of compensation based on relevant legal principles.
Headnote:
Delay in lodging FIR - Motor Accident Claims - Section 304-A of I.P.C. - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The deceased sustained grievous injuries in a road accident and eventually succumbed to the injuries. The claim for compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal due to a delay in lodging the first information report (FIR). The appellants challenged this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant’s case. The court found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto. The court also assessed the compensation amount based on the deceased's income and dependents.
Issues: Delay in lodging FIR, Rash and negligent driving, Compensation amount
Ratio Decidendi: The delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal for motor accident claim cases if satisfactory and cogent reasons are provided. The court also applied the relevant multiplier for loss of dependency and considered the deceased's income to determine the compensation amount.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the previous order and decree, and awarding compensation of Rs.3,96,400 to the petitioners with proportionate costs and interest.
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.02.2013 of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, passed in M.V.O.P.No.464 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition against the respondents, the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants/petitioners.
2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.
3. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows:
On 17.07.2011 at about 5.00 a.m. the deceased, by name, Rongali Ramana, was proceeding to Talupulamma Temple in an auto bearing registration No.AP 31X 9250 and when he reached Baligettam village at about 7.30 a.m., the driver of the auto drove the auto at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and in the process of diverting a cyclist, the auto turned turtle. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and on 28.07.2011 he succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment in the K.G.H., Visakhapatnam.
4. A case in Crime No.176 of 2011 of Narsipatnam (T) P.S. was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle in connection with the said accident under Section 304-A of I.P.C.. Eventually, after completion of investigation, the police found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing registration No.AP 31X 9250 by its driver. So, the police filed a charge sheet against the driver of the auto for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C.
5. The 1st appellant is wife and appellant Nos.2 to 5 are daughters of the deceased. They laid a claim for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Tribunal against the owner of the auto and insurer of the auto i.e., United Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘Insurance company’) as 1st and 2nd respondents respectively.
6. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter by denying the manner of accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is pleaded that appellant Nos.2 to 5 are not entitled to claim compensation because they are married and living separately.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the death of the deceased Rongali Ramana was due to the accident and whether the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing regd.No.AP 31X 9250?
2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3. To what relief?
8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the appellants/petitioners, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal found that there was a delay in lodging the first information report and the reasons for the delay were not at all explained by the petitioners and accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Assailing the legal validity of the said order of the Tribunal, this appeal is preferred by the petitioners.
10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.
11. The proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal are in the nature of summary enquiry, whereas in a criminal case the prosecution has to prove the case beyond shadow of reasonable doubt.
12. The paramount question that falls for adjudication in this appeal is, whether the delay in lodging the first information report is a ground to doubt the case of the petitioners?.
13. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto, the petitioners relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and relied on Ex.A.1-first information report, Ex.A.2-postmortem examination report, Ex.A.3-M.V.I.report and Ex.A.4-charge sheet.
14
