MANAGING DIRECTOR APSRTC MUSHIRABAD Vs. PITTALA MANEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents 1 to 4 who are the widow and children of P.Raghu (the deceased) who died due to a collision between the auto rickshaw being driven by him and a bus belonging to the appellant, filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 7,39,500/- from the appellant and 5th respondent, the driver of the bus involved in accident, alleging that accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent and examined two witnesses on their behalf as P.Ws. 1 and 2 and marked exhibits A-1 to A-8 on their behalf. 5th respondent i.e. the driver of the bus involved in the accident chose to remain ex parte. Appellant filed a counter contesting the claim of respondents, but did not adduce evidence either oral or documentary on its behalf. The Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by fifth respondent awarded Rs.5,33,160/- as compensation to respondents 1 to 4. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal is preferred by the first respondent before the Tribunal. Dissatisfied with the quantum claimants prefered cross-objections.

(2.) The points for consideration are: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 5th respondent? (2) To what amount are the respondents entitled? Point No. 1.

(3.) The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2 and in view of Ex. A-3, sketch of the scene of accident/ which shows that the accident took place on the wrong side of the road in the direction in which the bus was proceeding, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent. Since in Ex. A-5, charge sheet filed by police against the 5th respondent shows that P.W. 2 was cited as a witness to the accident it can prima facie be taken that P.W. 2 was a witness to the accident. But the evidence of P.W. 2 that he and the deceased started from Golkonda Chowrastha in two autos before the accident cannot be true, because in Ex. A-1 (FIR issued in connection with the accident) the complainant alleged that she and her mother and others boarded the auto rickshaw at Gandhi Nagar center and were proceeding to Maredapalli and that the accident occurred on the way at Boiguda railway quarters near Padmarao Nagar. So it is prima facie clear that P.W. 2 is a planted witness. Be that as it may, since Ex. A-3, sketch of the scene of accident, shows that the bus went to the wrong side of the road and dashed against the auto, which was proceeding on the correct side, it is prima fade clear that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 5th respondent. Though there is prima facie evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of 5th respondent the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant, appellant did not think it fit to examine the 5th respondent, to speak about the facts and circumstances leading to the accident. So, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the appellant and so the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 5th respondent, cannot be said to be erroneous, and so hold that the accident involving the deceased occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus belonging to the appellant, by the 5th respondent. This point is answered accordingly. Point No. II