Dismissed

The Inspector General of Police, Transport v. Ch. Pydimma

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Oct 2022MACMA/962/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal filed by the IG of Police challenging a Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal's award. The Court accepted the Tribunal's findings that the police bus driver was rashly negligent, rejected the defense's version, and held the awarded compensation of Rs. 4,41,000 was just and reasonable.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed without costs, and the Tribunal's order of 24.09.2012 confirming compensation of Rs. 4,41,000/- was confirmed.

The Inspector General of Police, Transport Vs… — Motor Accident Claims | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO

¶2

MACMA. No. 962 OF 2013

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

Aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2012 in MVOP No.478 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-IX Additional District Judge, (FTC), Visakhapatnam (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the 2^nd respondent-The Inspector General of Police, Transport Organization, Hyderabad, has preferred this appeal questioning the compensation amount by the Tribunal.

¶5

For convenience’s sake, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the MV OP.

¶6

The claimants have filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 55 of the AP Motor Vehicle Rules claiming a compensation amount of Rs.4,50,000/-for the death of Chinni Krishna (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.12.2009 at about 8.15 PM, while the deceased was coming to the house by a walk on the left side of the road margin, one police bus bearing No. AP 09 P 4017, driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased from his backside. As a

¶7

2 MACMA_962_2013

¶8

result of that, the deceased sustained severe injuries. Immediately, being shifted to Sharma hospital in an auto. Later, he advised to take him to KGH, which called for 108 ambulances; the attendant of 108 ambulances examined him and declared him dead.

¶9

The first respondent had filed a counter submitting that on a fateful day, while they were taking Naxalite prisoners to the central prison when the vehicle reached Adivivaram village, they noticed a person fell on the road. He applied brakes, got off the bus, called the public and telephoned 108 ambulance. They saw said person in a drunken state. When they reached the person, one unknown vehicle hit him, and he ran away from the spot.

¶10

The 2^nd respondent has filed its counter by disputing the averments pleaded in the petition.

¶11

Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A., 1 to A.6. On behalf of the respondent, R.Ws.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

¶12

After considering the evidence on behalf of both sides, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to the rash

¶13

¶14

MACMA_962_2013

¶15

and negligent driving of R.W.1/respondent No.1 and granted compensation of Rs.4,41,000/-against the respondents.

¶16

It is contended that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the police bus bearing AP 09 P 4071. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted compensation only based on the interested testimony of P.W.2, and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and exorbitant.

¶17

Now the points for consideration are whether the Tribunal erred in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and whether the Tribunal fixed just compensation.

¶18

POINTS:

¶19

The first claimant examined as P.W.1. She is the wife of the deceased. A reading of the evidence of P.W.1 shows that she is deposed as if she witnessed the accident in question. However, it is not her case that she was present at the time of the accident. The claimants mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, who claimed to have witnessed the occurrence in question. According

¶20

4 MACMA_962_2013

¶21

to P.W.2 N.Yerribabu, on 18.10.2009 at about 20:15 hours, while he was standing at the ration shop situated by the side of the ex-sarpanch house, he noticed one Chinni Krishna, the deceased herein, was coming towards Adivivaram by a walk on the left side of road margin and a police bus bearing No. AP 09 P 4017, was proceeding from Simhachalam to the central prison, rashly and negligently dashed the deceased. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and was admitted him to the hospital in an auto; subsequently, he came to know that the injured had succumbed. Though P.W.1 has not stated the driver's identity, the 1^st respondent, being examined as R.W.1, claimed that he was driving the police vehicle at the time of the accident. Still, he disputed the happening of the occurrence. As seen from the record, a report was lodged on 18.12.2009 at 22:00 hours, i.e., within one hour and 45 minutes of the accident, by one K.Srinivasa Rao, in the Gopalapuram PS. The copy of the FIR marked as Ex.A.1. A perusal of Ex.A.1-report shows an explicit mention that one minibus that was going to the jail dashed the deceased near the house of the ex-sarpanch. The particulars of the accident are noted in Ex.A.1 report. The petitioners also relied on Ex.A.3, a copy of the MVI report and Ex.A.4-charge

¶22

5 MACMA_962_2013

¶23

sheet. As per Ex.A.4 charge sheet, on 18.12.2009 at about 18:15 hours, the deceased was returning to his house after attending the nature calls while walking by the left side of the road margin, the police bus, Eicher bearing No. AP 09 P 4017 proceeding from Simhachalam to Central prison dashed the deceased from behind, opposite the house of the ex-sarpanch.

¶24

The contents of the charge sheet supported the case of the claimants. R.W.3-K. Satyanarayana, Investigation Officer, stated in his evidence that he filed a charge sheet against the first respondent under Section 304-A IPC in Cr. No.222/2009, and he received an endorsed FIR, sent the original to the Court and examined and recorded the statement of K.Srinivasa Rao. According to him, P.W.2-N.Yerri Babu has not stated in his statement that he witnessed the accident. In cross-examination, R.W.3 was confronted with the charge sheet in which P.W.2 was shown as L.W.10 as an eyewitness to the accident. He filed the charge sheet against R.1, who was working in the police department at the relevant time of the offence; he stated in his chief examination about his filing of the charge sheet against R.1, attributing the accident occurred due to his negligence.

¶25

6 MACMA_962_2013

¶26

Still, contra to the contents of the charge sheet, he deposed that P.W.2 is not shown as an eyewitness to the accident. Based on the evidence, this Court believes that as the police vehicle was involved in the accident, he has given an inconsistent version in the Court despite filing the charge sheet against the driver of the police bus. A reading of the material on record shows that in police departmental enquiry, P.w2's statement came to be recorded and marked as Ex.B.1. It appears that P.W.2 is said to have stated that he is not an eyewitness to the accident. Nothing on the record to suggest why P.w2 stated such a version in the departmental enquiry. P.W.2 in the Court clearly stated that he witnessed the accident. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to give much significance to the statement said to be provided by P.W.2 to police, more particularly, even according to

¶27

the police during the investigation, P.W.2 stated that he witnessed the occurrence. In the charge sheet also, he is cited as a witness. Ex.B.1-statement relied on by the police department is entirely inconsistent with the contents of the charge sheet, which the investigation officer filed after conducting the investigation. Though the 2^nd respondent also got examined R.W.2 in support of its case. On careful appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has

¶28

7 MACMA_962_2013

¶29

declined to consider the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 by giving cogent reasons. This Court need not reiterate the same reasons.

¶30

This Court accepts the findings of the Tribunal for not considering evidence of R.Ws.1 to 3, who are working in the police department.

¶31

It is the case of the 1^st respondent; on seeing the person on the road in a drunken state, they reached where one unknown vehicle dashed against the person. Suppose there is a truth in the version of R.W.1; this Court is of the view that the investigation officer would have tried to trace out the particulars of the unidentified vehicle by conducting an investigation and has not ventured to implicate a police vehicle in the accident case. He would not have acted against the department's interest by implicating the police vehicle when an unidentified vehicle was involved in the accident. Upon considering the probabilities also, this Court is of the view that the version put forth by the respondents is unreasonable and unbelievable. Though R.W.3investigation officer, appears to have conducted an investigation impartially at the initial stage of the matter, he deposed contra to the observations made in the charge sheet for a reason best known to him, perhaps as the departmental vehicle is involved in

¶32

8 MACMA_962_2013

¶33

the accident. This Court is of the view that had there been no truth in the version of the claimants; the investigation officer could not have filed the charge sheet against the police vehicle. This Court is of the view after taking proper investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the driver of the police vehicle. In the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. With regard to the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.

¶34

Coming to the compensation amount, the claimants have placed Ex.A.6-original salary certificate issued by Sri Sai Residential Welfare Association, wherein it is shown that an amount of Rs.4,600/- per month was paid to the deceased. Since the account books were not filed, the Tribunal has not considered Ex.A.6 document. Based on the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants, the Tribunal has concluded that the deceased's income is taken as Rs.4,000/- as mentioned in the claim petition as a sweeper in the gram panchayat. The age of the deceased was taken by relying on documents placed, and the age of the deceased was taken into a group of 45 to 50 years. As noted earlier, the first claimant is the wife of the deceased, and the 2^nd and 3^rd claimants are the daughter and son of the deceased. The

¶35

9 MACMA_962_2013

¶36

Tribunal has deducted 1/3^rd of the monthly earnings of the deceased towards his personal expenditure. So the Tribunal concluded that his contribution to the family per annum would be Rs.32,400/- multiplied by 13, and the total amount arrived at Rs.4,21,000/-. The Tribunal awarded the amount of Rs.20,000/towards conventional heads. Thereby Tribunal granted a compensation amount of Rs.4,41000/-.

¶37

After carefully reading the material on record, this Court is of the view that the compensation amount fixed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. I do not find any substance in the appeal to interfere with the impugned order in the present appeal, and the appeal is devoid of merits.

¶38

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs and the order passed by the Tribunal dated 24.09.2012 in MVOP No.478 of 2010 is hereby confirmed.

¶39

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.

¶40

¶41

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J

¶42

Dt.18.10.2022 BV

The Inspector General of Police, Transport v. Ch. Pydimma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Inspector General of Police, Transport v. Ch. Pydimma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Limited, Guntur. Vs Peram Naga Lakshmi and 7 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Medara Suresh and 2 Ors.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Medara Mankalamma and 2 Ors.

Valsareddi Vijaya and 3 Others Vs v. Kalam Azad and Another

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt.Kurugodumochi Saroja and 2 Ors.

Shaik Shajida Begum and 2 Others Vs Koneru Rama Rao and Another