N SURYANARAYANA Vs. BOOREDDI CHINA VENKATARAMANA CAMP CLERK OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RURAL VISAKHAPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed against the award dated 6-9-1996 in M.O.P. No.345 of 1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The Appellant herein is the 1st respondent in the said O.P. The petitioners herein referred to as they are arrayed in the OP. The claim was laid by the employee working as Camp Clerk in the office of the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Visakhapatnam.

(2.) The facts leading to the case are that the 1st respondent was working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chintapalli, while the claimant was working as Camp Clerk. On 18-2-1990 the Claimant, the 1st respondent along with two gunmen and one orderly were proceeding in a Departmental jeep bearing registration No.AHV 5158 from Chintapalli to Visakhapatnam to attend an official meeting at Visakhapatnam. While so, after driving for some time, the 1st respondent took the steering from the driver and started driving the jeep. It was drizzling at about 4-30 p.m. The 1st respondent on seeing a lorry coming from the opposite side applied sudden brakes, with the result the jeep turned turtile and the petitioner-claimant received injuries. Immediately, he was admitted in Anakapalli Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Visakhapatnam. He was operated on his right leg and two plates were inserted in his leg. He also received number of fractures and cut injuries. On account of the injuries sustained, he is not in a position to walk and that he has to use two callipers. He cannot drive cycle or scooter. Since the accident arose on account of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the 2nd respondent-appellant, he laid a claim before the Tribunal claiming Rs.6.00 lakhs towards compensation on all counts. The claim was resisted by the 1st respondent and also other respondents. The Tribunal on consideration of the pleadings framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident has taken place that resulted in causing the injuries to the petitioner due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep AHV 5158 by the first respondent? (2) Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation and, if so, to what quantum and by which respondent? (3) To what relief?

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner-claimant three witnesses were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked, whereas on behalf of the respondents RWs.1 to 3 were examined, but no documents were marked. Exs.X1 to X4 were marked by the Court.