THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER M.A.C.M.A No.2859 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant-claimant filed this appeal against the Order and Decree dated 07.03.2013 in M.V.O.P.No.139 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge (I Additional District Judge), Warangal, where under the Tribunal dismissed the appeal refusing to grant compensation.

2. Heard the Sri Ch.Shashi Bhushan, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N.Mohan Krishna, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3-Insurance Company and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Briefly, the case of the claimant is that on 25.11.2004, while the husband of the appellant was going on TVS XL Super two wheeler bearing No.AP-36-L-8572, an unknown vehicle proceeding from Bhupalpally came from behind the two wheeler and dashed against him resulting in his falling down and subsequently death.

F.I.R. was registered on 25.11.2004.

4. Later, the alleged crime vehicle bearing No.AP-36-W-2883 was identified as the vehicle which is involved in the accident after 2 years 3 months on 08.02.2007, when the owner of the crime vehicle one Mr.K.Srinivas surrendered his Driver before the Police and on the very same day, the Driver was charge sheeted.

5. The Tribunal found that if at all P.W.2 was labour working in the crime vehicle, nothing stopped him to state about the accident before the Police. Though he was examined in the trial Court for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC before the Magistrate, the accused was acquitted. Accordingly, refused compensation on the ground that vehicle was planted at a later date.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that claimant is a hapless woman who lost her husband, it is not her duty to identify the vehicle and it is for the Police to investigate the case and file charge sheet. He further submits that though there is a delay, the said delay cannot be attributed to the claimant. The provisions of Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislature and burden on the claimant would be one of preponderance of probability.

7. Learned counsel further argued that in K.Rajani and others v. M.Satyanarayana Goud and another, [2014 SCC Online AP 418] the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is the duty of the Superior Police Officer to take action against the erred Police Officers who fail to file a charge sheet implicating the crime vehicle involved in an accident.

Further, in the said judgment, this Court found that if all the findings in the charge sheet are incorrect, the Insurance Company shall be duty bound to adduce evidence contrary to the findings in the charge sheet.

8. In the present facts of the case, P.W.2 who is the alleged eye- witness belongs to the very same village where the claimant is residing. If at all he was the cleaner of the crime vehicle, he would have informed the claimant or other villagers or the Police regarding accident resulting in death of the claimant’s husband. The owner of the crime vehicle surrendered the Driver on 08.02.2007 and on the very same day, charge sheet was filed, which is after 2 years and 3 months.

9. In the said circumstances, identification of the crime vehicle is doubtful and there arises reasonable doubt that the vehicle was planted for the purpose of the case. I do not find any grounds to set aside the order of the Tribunal.

10. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________

K.SURENDER, J Date : 15.03.2024 dv