NARASAMMA Vs. M SAIBAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN interesting point has fallen for decision in this appeal, which basically revolves around the question as to whether the status of a passenger continues if the passenger has indicated an intent to leave the vehicle in which the passenger was travelling and whether the extended principle which has been held applicable in certain cases for certain reasons that the status will hold good to situations where the injury has been caused in the process of alighting, would also cover a case where injury has occurred immediately after the person has alighted. We shall briefly recount the facts giving rise to this controversy. One Hussainappa who was aged approximately 60 years had travelled in a goods vehicle, viz. , a truck on the evening of 17. 7. 1993 and this vehicle stopped near a Mutt at which time Hussainappa got down from the truck in question. There is some slight ambiguity with regard to exactly how the injury was sustained but the wife and minor children who are the claimants before the M. A. C. T. had contended that he had just alighted from the vehicle, that the cleaner was in a hurry as a result of which he did not give Hussainappa sufficient time to get clear of the vehicle and that he signalled to the driver to start off as a result of which the truck virtually moved almost simultaneously and in the course of this action the rear wheels of the truck ran over Hussainappa. PW 2 Dubbanna went and informed his family who came to the spot and had Hussainappa removed to the hospital. Both legs were badly crushed as a result of which they were required to be amputated and Hussainappa died. There is little dispute about the fact that the injuries were sustained in the course of the incident and that death was the direct result of these injuries. A claim was preferred before the tribunal for compensation at which time the owner of the truck took up the contention that this was not the vehicle involved in the incident and that the claim as against the owner should be dismissed. The insurance company was also represented and in the written statement, the insurance company admitted the position that the truck that was alleged to have been involved in the incident was insured by the company. Learned Member of the Tribunal examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that it fell short of establishing that this was the very vehicle which had caused the injuries despite the fact that the police had prosecuted the driver before a criminal court and consequently, dismissed the claim. The present appeal assails the correctness of that order.

(2.) AT the hearing, appellants' learned advocate relied on the evidence of PW 2 dubbanna who claims to be the eyewitness and who has in terms stated that the deceased was in the process of alighting from the vehicle when the cleaner gave the signal to the driver to proceed, that as a result of the movement of the lorry the body of the vehicle came in contact with the deceased and that the wheel ran over his legs and this was how he sustained the injuries. He has given the number of the lorry as 22-1500. The second piece of evidence on which reliance is placed is, entry in the check-post which does indicate that the truck No. AP 22-T 1500 had passed through the check-post but in view of the fact that there is slight vagueness with regard to the closure of the entries on the night of 17. 7. 1993, it was argued on behalf of the owner and the insurance company that this entry can even hold good for the following morning. We need to straightaway point out that there is little justification for this view because this is the last entry for 17. 7. 1993 after which a line has been drawn and even though no timings have been recorded, one would have to assume that this was obviously sometime before midnight of 17. 7. 1993.

(3.) APPELLANTS' learned advocate has submitted that as far as the liability of the present vehicle is concerned, that it may be that PW 2 who is an elderly person has given the figures and not the alphabets but that the court will have to correlate these with the check-post entry and hold that this was the vehicle which had caused the injuries. He has also dealt with the material produced by the owner who has taken up the defence that the lorry was engaged on 17. 7. 1993 and 18. 7. 1993 for carrying materials from Gadwal to Raichur, the distance being 50 km. and that the documents from the company, viz. , Raichur Solvents industry would support the view that the vehicle was nowhere near that place when the incident took place. Though we have examined this head of material and we have heard the owner's learned advocate in extenso we are not much impressed by this argument because the point of time when the vehicle reached the destination or left that spot is totally irrelevant for a variety of reasons, the most important being that the vehicle could have even stopped for the night in which case such a situation could arise. We are, therefore, left with the limited evidence that is before us from which the appellants' learned advocate submits that a finding must be recorded that it was the truck bearing No. AP 22-T 1500 that was involved in the accident. On the other hand, as indicated earlier the owner contends that the Tribunal was right in recording the finding that the evidence falls short of this conclusion.