UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KALALI RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sri K.Rajam, resident of Dubbagudem Village, was walking on the left side of the main road in the village, on 11.07.1995, at 7.30 p.m. An auto-rikshaw bearing No.AP 13T 6186, owned by the 9th respondent and insured with the appellant, came from his backside in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him. He sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious and was shifted to Government Hospital, at Mancherial. Crime No.93 of 1995 was registered by P.S. Kasipet. While undergoing treatment at the hospital, Rajam died, on the same day. His wife, the 1st respondent, and children, respondents 2 to 8, filed O.P.No.346 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad, claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-, as compensation. They pleaded that the deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of accident and that he was a vegetable vendor.

(2.) The claim was resisted, mainly by the appellant herein. It filed a counter-affidavit disputing the very occurrence of the accident. A plea was raised to the effect that unless ft is proved that the driver of the vehicle possessed valid driving licence, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Other ancilliary pleas were also raised. The 9th respondent adopted the counter-affidavit filed by the appellant herein. ' reports, marked as Exs.A.2 and A.3, it is clearly evident that not only the accident had occurred, but also, the deceased died in it. In the instant case, the questions, as to whether the accident occurred, on account of any rashness on the part of the driver; and whether the appellant can be absolved from its liability, on account of the fact that the driver did not possess licence; are mixed with each other.

(3.) PW.2, an eyewitness to the accident, narrated the manner in which the accident took place. He clearly stated that he had seen the auto-rikshaw hitting the deceased when he was going by walk. Nothing was elicited from this witness, to discredit his version. Apart from that, the First Information Report and other related documents, clearly spoke about the rashness and negligence, on the part of the driver. The very fact that a pedestrian had been hit by a motor vehicle, is sufficient to establish the negligence on the part of the driver.