RUSTUM Vs. CHOOTU MOTO JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil miscellaneous appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred by the claimants who are not satisfied with the quantum of compensation of Rs. 2,47,500.00 awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in OP No. 3 of 1997.

(2.) THE facts that ate relevant for the present are that on 8. 9. 1996 at about 8. 30 p. m. , the son of the appellants 1 and 2 by name Saleem along with one other person by name Murali Mohan retired to sleep on the road margin near Parasnk Village on National Highway No. 9 in State of Rajasthan behind a truck mounted bore well machine, which went out of order and that at about 8. 30 p. m. , a Maruti Car bearing No. RJ 07 C 1200 came from Rajaldesar side at a high speed and driven very rashly and negligently and ran over those persons who have retired to sleep. As a result of this accident, the son of the appellants 1 and 2 Saleem and another person by name Ramesh died on the spot. Murali Mohan and others sustained grevious injuries. The offending vehicle came to a halt upon hitting the truck mounted bore well. The police of Rajaldesar registered a case in Cr. No. 98 of 1996 under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the Maruti Car and took up the matter for investigation. Since the son of the appellants 1 and 2 died wholly due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending motor vehicle referred to supra, a claim in a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs has been made in Op No. 319 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent was the owner of the vehicle which caused the accident. The 2nd respondent is its insurer. On behalf of the claimants they have examined two witnesses and got marked Exs. Al to A10. Though no witnesses are examined on behalf of the respondents, a copy of the insurance policy has been got marked as Ex. Bl on the side of the respondent No. 2. PW1 is none other than the 1st claimant/appellant herein, the father of the deceased Saleem. He could only narrate the age of the deceased and the particulars of his income etc. , He could not be of much help beyond that inasmuch as he was not an eye-witness to the accident. PW2 is one Mr. Murali Mohan who is one of the injured persons in the accident. He has narrated in graphic detail as to how the offending Maruti Car had been driven at great speed and as to how the accident had been caused due to sheer negligence of the driver of the said vehicle. PW2 himself is an injured person in the accident. He was a direct witness to the accident itself. Police have recorded his statement. The contents of Ex. Al read with Ex. A6 - charge sheet, completely corroborate deposition of PW2. Therefore, there is no difficulty for the Motor Vehicles Tribunal to have arrived at a finding that the accident in question had been caused wholly due to the rash and negligent manner of driving by the driver of the offending Maruti Car and hence the respondents are found jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, inasmuch as the 2nd respondent has issued the insurance policy which is valid and subsisting at the time of the accident. Further, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence and the best piece of evidence to the contra that can be spoken to by the driver of the vehicle who has not even been examined, there is no material on record even slightly to doubt the correctness of the finding recorded in this regard.

(3.) HEARD Sri Harinatha Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri K. V. Janardhan Rao, was heard for Sri Muddu Vijay, learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent for the Insurance Company.