JULEKHA BEE Vs. O BALI REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act to set aside the award passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No.22 of 1990, dated 25-2-1992 and to award compensation as claimed for by them. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are as follows:- The deceased was a Class IV employee working in the Nandy al Branch of the State Bank of India drawing roughly about Rs.3,000/- per month. On 30-4-1989 at about 7.30 p.m. the deceased and his friend were going on a Moped and the said vehicle was driven by the deceased. At a place near Bommalasatram, the tractor bearing registration No. AAQ1178 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the moped. As a result of the impact, the deceased fell down from the moped and sustained serious injuries to which he succumbed while undergoing treatment in the Government General Hospital, Kumool. At the time of his death, he was aged 39 years.The claimants filed anapplication under Sections 92 and 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a total compensation of Rs.6 lakhs. The break-up of the total compensation claimed by the petitioners is as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_730_ALT1_1996Html1.htm</FRM> This application was opposed by respondents 1 and 2. They denied the nature of accident, namely, the negligence on the part of the tractor driver. To support their respective claims, the petitioners examined P.Ws.l to 4 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.l and 2 were examined. R.W.I is the Tractor driver and R.W.2 is the bullock cart driver. They also marked Exs.B-1 and B-2. Ex.B-1 is the copy of Policy and B-2 is the deposition of P.W.3 in C.C. No.94/89 on the file of the Addl. District Munsiff Court, Nandyal. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the driver of the tractor AAQ 1175 drove the Tractor on 30-4-1989 at about 7.00 p.m. near Tobacco Factory in between Bommalasatram and Nandyal rashly and negligently at a high speed and caused the accident resulting in the death of the deceased? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. Whether the vehicle is insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident? 4. To what relief?

(2.) The Tribunal after appreciating the entire material evidence on record found that in case negligence had been proved the claimants would have been entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,16,000/-; that the first claimant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium and Rs.15,000/- can be added to the above amount of compensation towards pecuniary damages payable to the claimants for loss of expectation of life of the deceased and for pain and suffering. Thus, he held that they would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,41,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. if they had proved that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver. But as the claimants miserably failed to prove that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent drivingby the driver of the tractor,, he held that the claimants are entitled to only a sum of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal is preferred by the claimants.

(3.) It is contended by Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants that the Tribunal should nothave rejected the evidence of P.W3 who is a de facto complainant and an independent eye witness. His evidence should not have been rejected merely because there are some contradictions in the evidence which he had given in the criminal Court and in the Tribunal. No adverse inference should have been drawn because-P.W.3 did not choose to appear for cross-examination. The Tribunal should have noticed that either the evidence given or orderpassed by the criminalCourt will not have any bearing in respect of the proceedings initiated under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act.