J SATYANARAYANA Vs. M. AKTHAR BAIG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE minor child of the appellants herein, aged 4 years, by name Sree Durga, died in an accident on 01.10.1991 by 12.30 noon at Ankola camp, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad District. It was pleaded that when the child was crossing the road, a Jeep bearing No.AHJ 1208, driven by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, dashed against the child, resulting in instantaneous death. THE appellants filed O.P.No.259 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge) Nizamabad (for short the Tribunal) claiming a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and the O.P. was contested by respondent No.3 alone.

(2.) A counter was filed on behalf of respondent No.3 denying the facts pleaded in the O.P. However, it was mentioned that the vehicle had a valid insurance coverage and that it would abide by the terms and conditions of the policy.

(3.) THIS Court is indeed shocked to know the manner in which the Tribunal has dealt with the case. The fact that the child died on account of her being knocked by the Jeep is evident from the First Information Report, marked as Ex.A1; charge sheet, Ex.A2; post-mortem report, Ex.A4; scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A5; and inquest report, Ex.A6. A report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is marked as Ex.A3. According to this, the vehicle did not have any mechanical defects and the accident occurred on account of human failure. Respondent No.1, who is the driver of the vehicle, did not enter appearance, much less did he depose as a witness. Though respondent No.3 contested the matter, it did not examine any witness. Still, it was held that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence on the part of the deceased child. There cannot be a better instance of perversity than the one resorted to by the Tribunal.