ADAPAKA ESWARAMMA Vs. N CHANDRA SEKHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants, who are the wife and children of one Adapaka Shyam Sundara Rao who died in a road accident on 4.11.1987 at Jagadamba Junction, Visakhapatnam. The claimants filed O.P. No. 139 of 1989, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that one Adapaka Shyam Sundara Rao, aged 41 years, husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 was coming to Jagadamba Junction, Visakhapatnam, at about 6 p.m. on 4.11.1987, to the city bus stop situated opposite to Daspalla Hotel, to board a city bus. Respondent, N. Chandra Sekhar, suddenly dashed Shyam Sundara Rao with his scooter from behind due to which Shyam Sundara Rao fell down. The respondent immediately removed him to the King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and left him there in the verandah of the hospital. Shyam Sundara Rao had sustained fracture to his left leg and other simple injuries. He was admitted in the hospital. After he was discharged from the hospital, he was again admitted in Orthopaedic Unit as inpatient for some time and later he was discharged. Subsequently, he was treated as outpatient for six months. After removal of bandages, Shyam Sundara Rao used to walk with help of stick, and after one week he died on account of the injuries and also due to mental shock. It is claimed that the respondent being the driver-cum-owner of Chetak scooter No. AEV 3448 is liable to pay compensation to appellants.

(3.) The respondent filed counter denying the averments made by the petitioner in the O.P. Though he admitted that he is the registered owner of the scooter No. AEV 3448, he contended that as on the date of the accident he was not in Visakhapatnam and that he was at Bokaro Steel City on official duty and after his return from the Bokaro Steel City he came to know that his scooter was taken away by the II Town Police of Visakhapatnam, and when he got released the scooter from the police station, he was informed by police that one Madhu, nephew of the respondent, has driven his scooter on 4.11.87 and caused the accident. The respondent stated that when he was out of Visakhapatnam, his nephew Madhu took the scooter without his knowledge and permission on 4.11.1987. He further stated that Madhu contested Criminal Case No. 44 of 1988 on the file of the IX Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Visakhapatnam which was registered against Madhu under section 338, Indian Penal Code stating that the deceased himself dashed the scooter which was being driven by him without any fault and without any rashness or negligence on his (Madhu's) part and the criminal court had acquitted the said Madhu. It was also stated that during the course of trial in the criminal court, police did not alter the case from section 338, Indian Penal Code to any other section under the Indian Penal Code and there was no post-mortem examination conducted on the body of the deceased. The respondent contended he is innocent and not liable to pay compensation. He stated that by the date of the alleged accident, the vehicle was not insured and so the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the original petition.