The court emphasized the importance of evidence in determining the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation, and upheld the principle of liability in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.11.2006 in MVOP No. 363 of 2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (for short Tribunal), the 3rdrespondent United Indian Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional Manager preferred this appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience hereinafter parties will be referred as they were arrayed in MVOP No. 363 of 2002.

3. On factual side, that on 01.07.2001 while the petitioner was participating along with her relatives in Ratha Yatra at Illisipuram, near Kotha road the 1st respondent drove the offending car at high speed, without blowing horn, came at high speed, dashed her, then the petitioner sustained multiple and grievous injuries and also head injury, due to which she lost her consciousness.

4. The 2nd respondent filed counter admitting the accident, but contending that accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner and claimed that the vehicle was having valid insurance coverage and the driver was having valid driving license.

5. The 3rd respondent filed counter by contending that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and seeks to dismiss the petition.

6. Based on the pleadings the necessary issues were formulated by the tribunal for consideration. Before the Tribunal on behalf of claimant PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked, on behalf of respondent RW-1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

7. The tribunal on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence on record has awarded the total compensation amount of Rs.1,54,000/- to the petitioner with interest at 7.5% per annum under different heads.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for appellant and the counsel for respondent. Perused the record.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the tribunal erred in giving finding that the driver of the car is negligent by relying on the police documents and no eye witnesses are examined before the tribunal and the tribunal erred in holding that driver of the car was holding valid driving license. Learned counsel appearing for respondent supported the observations and findings of the learned Tribunal.

10. Now the point for consideration is whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and the driver was having valid driving license and the quantum of compensation amount as awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable.

POINT:

11. To prove the manner of accident the petitioner is examined as PW-1, who is injured in this case. Her evidence shows that the car which was coming from Narasannapeta in the evening dashed against her. To prove the injuries sustained by the petitioner she relied on Ex.A2 wound certificate. The contents of Ex.A1 report given by brother of PW-1 support the case of petitioner regarding the manner of accident. The petitioner also relied on Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet. Nothing is elicited in the cross-examination to discredit her evidence regarding the manner of accident.

12. The driver of the car is the best person to speak about the manner of accident. The respondent insurance company has also not taken steps to prove the manner of accident by summoning the driver of car and to establish that he did not drive the vehicle rashly and negligently at the time of accident.

13. A reading of Ex.A1 coupled with Ex.A4 certified copy of charge sheet goes to show that the driver of the offending vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident.

No evidence is placed by the respondent to show that the contents of the charge sheet are incorrect. In a decision between K. Rajani and Others vs. M. Satyanarayana Goud and Others, 2015 ACJ 797 the High Court is pleased to observe that:

“When the insurance company came to know that the police investigation is false, they must also challenge the charge sheet in approp