Back
2020 Supreme(Telangana) 9
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. LAKSHMAN, J.
P. Lalitha & Others - Appellants
Versus
M.A. Bari and Ors. – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A. No.1564 of 2006
Decided On : 06-02-2020
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao
For the Respondent: Mr. S. Agastya Sharma
Point of Law :
Delay in lodging complaint is not fatal to claim compensation
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 161 - Seeking compensation - Motor Accidents Claims - Deceased - Petitioners after meeting his parents and thereafter his friend in village at about 10.00 p.m. while he was waiting for private buses, lorry bearing registration driven by its driver in a rash and negligent driving and at high speed came and dashed him, due to which, he died - Deceased was aged 29 years and earning an amount per month by working as an Engineer. On account of death of deceased, the appellants, who are wife, son, parents and brother lost dependency - Thus, they laid a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation against respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the above said lorry -
Finding of the Court:
police closed the said FIR by way of filing final report on the ground ‘undetected’. PW.2, who claimed to be the passenger of the accident lorry, colleague of the father of the deceased and residing in the same colony, kept quiet for almost one year. The police reopened the case only when the driver of the lorry surrendered himself before the police after one year and voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence. The police without investigating the entire issue properly filed Ex.A4 - charge sheet. As already discussed above, the silence on the part of PW.2, LW.7 - and LW.8 - more particularly on the part of PW.2 gives suspicion and his evidence is unbelievable and not trustworthy. The said principle held by this Court in the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the case on hand - Tribunal on the analysis of the entire evidence rightly held that the appellants - petitioners failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle of respondent No.1 in the alleged accident and, as such, they are not entitled for any compensation - Court is satisfied with findings recorded by the Tribunal on the said aspects and accordingly the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed -
Result: Appeal is dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2006 in O.P. No.289 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the petitioners preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid judgment the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellants - petitioners against respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of lorry bearing registration No.AP-25/T 4645, seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of death of Rajender Kumar.
3. Heard Mr. V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellants - petitioners and Mr. S. Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Insurer. It is relevant to note that the above appeal was dismissed for default by this Court vide order dated 29.06.2016 against respondent No.1.
4. According to the appellants - petitioners, on 22.11.2000, P. Rajender Kumar, after meeting his parents in Bodhan and thereafter his friend in Sadasivnagar village at about 10.00 p.m. while he was waiting for private buses to go to Hyderabad from Sadasivnagar village, lorry bearing registration No. AP-25T-4645 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent driving and at high speed came and dashed him, due to which, he died. The deceased was aged 29 years and earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as an Engineer. On account of death of deceased, the appellants, who are wife, son, parents and brother lost dependency. Thus, they laid a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking a compensation of Rs.10.00 lakhs against respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the above said lorry.
5. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
6. Respondent No.2 - Insurer of the lorry filed its written statement denying the claim made by the appellants. According to respondent No.2, in Ex.A-1 - FIR, vehicle number was not mentioned. The police after conducting investigation filed final report closing the FIR on the ground ‘undetected’. It further contended that after lapse of one year, the appellants hatched a plan with the help of PW.2 and police and planted the said vehicle/lorry bearing No.AP-25/T-4645 taking advantage of mentioning the word “lorry” in FIR. It further contended that the said lorry is not the vehicle which involved in the alleged accident and the appellants with the help of PW.2, driver of the vehicle and police with an intention to claim compensation from respondent No.2 - Insurer, filed the above claim petition by creating documents and thus it is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellants and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against it.
7. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal dismissed the said claim petition (O.P. No.289 of 2002) on the ground that the appellants - petitioners failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle of respondent No.1 in the accident and, therefore, they are not entitled for any compensation under the provisions of the Act.
8. On perusal of the entire record including Exs.A1 - FIR, A4 - charge sheet, B1- investigation report, B2 - statement of PW.2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., B3 - deposition of PW.2 in criminal case etc., it is not in dispute that the deceased died in an accident. In Ex.A1 - FIR, vehicle number is not mentioned and it is only mentioned as “LORRY”. Admittedly, the said FIR was closed by the police and they have filed a final report closing the FIR on the ground ‘UNDETECTED’. PW.2 - T. Purrnachander Rao, who is claiming that he knows the deceased family and that father of deceased and himself are colleagues in NSF Factory, Shakkernagar, Bodhan and that they are residing in NSF Colony, deposed that he was also traveling in the vehicle which dashed the deceased. Admittedly, Ex.A1 - FIR was registered on the complaint given by one Mr. Kakkera Raghu Shetty. In the said FIR, number of the vehicle is not mentioned and it is only ment
