Negligence in vehicle accidents is evaluated under civil standards where eyewitness testimony is critical, irrespective of contradictions in criminal proceedings, impacting compensation assessment.

JUDGMENT :

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J.

MACMA No.413 of 2022 is an appeal filed by the claimants and MACMA No.555 of 2023 is an appeal filed by the insurance company. Considering the fact that these two appeals arise out of the same award and decree dated 28.02.2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, “the Tribunal”), these two appeals are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

2. For convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of these two appeals are that, M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2015 was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and parents of Nagaraju (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), against respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs.42,00,000/- for the death of the deceased in an accident.

3.1. It is averred that on 04.10.2014 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-24-AD-6613 from Khaitapuram to Mallareddygudem and when he reached near flyover bridge at the outskirts of Koyalagudem village, one Maruthi Swift Car bearing registration No.AP-24-AS-4949 (hereinafter referred to as ‘crime vehicle’), driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed from back side of the vehicle of the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down on the ground and succumbed to injuries on the spot.

3.2. The Police, Choutuppal P.S., registered a case in Crime No.315/2014 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and subsequently, on completion of investigation laid a charge-sheet.

3.3. It is averred that the deceased was aged 30 years, hale and healthy and was working as driver of the APSRTC Bus, Bandlaguda Depot, Hyderabad, and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and contributing the same for maintaining his family. Further, it is contended that due to the ultimately demise of the deceased in the accident, the claim petitioners have lost their sole source of dependency and thus, prayed for grant of just and fair compensation vide the said MVOP.

4. The respondent No.1/owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and accident occurred only due to negligent driving on the part of the deceased, who drove the vehicle without having any driving licence, and it was averred in the first instance that Ex.A1-First Information Report was lodged against a unknown vehicle and later on the crime vehicle was planted with the active collusion of the respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the crime vehicle with the claimants, as the deceased and owner of the crime vehicle belonged to the same village. Further, it is averred that the main witness P.W.2, who was examined before the Tribunal, has stated that he has witnessed the accident, however, in the trial in criminal case against the driver of the crime vehicle, he stated that he did not witness the incident and do not know anything about the incident. Thus, the insurance company prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Swift Car bearing No.