Siddavatam Linga Reddy Vs Sri K. Mohan & Another

M.A.C.M.A.No.464 of 2006 is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the claimant against the award and the decree dated 27.10.2005 in O.P.No.778 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur at Gooty.

¶36

M.A.C.M.A.No.477 of 2006 is filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 by the claimant against the award and the decree dated 14.10.2005 in O.P.No.234 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Ananthapur at Gooty.

¶37

The case of the claimants, is briefly, as follows:

¶38

The claimant in each case filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries suffered in a motor vehicle accident while going in a tractor-trailer on 03.06.1999. The respondent No.1 is

¶39

3

¶40

BSB,J

¶41

MACMA.No.464 of 2006 & 477 of 2006

¶42

the owner of the tractor and trailer and the 2^nd respondent is their insured. The liability of the insurance company was denied on the ground that the petitioner and others were travelling in the trailer as gratuitous passengers since the complainant in F.I.R. was taking all the inmates of the trailer to attend anniversary of his father by engaging the tractor-trailer. Whereas the claimants contended that all of them were travelling as coolies in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

¶43

After considering the evidence, the Tribunal accepted the contention of the insurance company that the claimant and others were travelling in the tractor-trailer as gratuitous passengers, with reference to the evidence in F.I.R. and charge sheet marked as Exs.A1 and A2 respectively. Thus, the Tribunal, while allowing the petition granting compensation, fastened the liability only against the respondent No.1 / owner and exonerated the respondent No.2 / insurance company.

¶44

Aggrieved by the award, the appeals were filed. The main contention of the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to hold that the claimant is a coolie travelling in a vehicle and the insurance company is also liable as such and even in case of violation of any of the condition of the policy, the insurance company shall be directed to pay amount of compensation and recover the same from the insured.

¶45

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the very plea of the claimant is that the he is a coolie and evidence given before the Tribunal is also the same and therefore merely because the report in F.I.R. and the charge sheet is different, the evidence given before the Tribunal shall not be rejected. On the other hand, the learned counsel

¶46

4

¶47

BSB,J

¶48

MACMA.No.464 of 2006 & 477 of 2006

¶49

for the respondent No.2 / insurance company argued that plea that the claimant was a coolie is not sufficient and there must be details as to what kind of coolie work was discharged. She further submitted that the F.I.R. and the charge sheet specifically indicate that the claimant and others were travelling in the tractor hired to carry them to attend the ceremony and therefore, they were gratuitous passengers and no liability could be fastened. She further submitted that even the insurance company shall not be, directed to first pay and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle / insured.

¶50

As against the oral evidence of the claimant, there is no other evidence to show that the claimant was travelling as a coolie. On the other hand, the documents filed by the claimant under Exs.A1 and A2 would contradict the case of the claimant. They are the documents filed by the claimant himself. Even then the claimant has not explained as to why there is inconsistent statement in the F.I.R. and also in the charge sheet. It is only after making preliminary investigation, a charge sheet would be filed. Therefore, not only in the F.I.R., but also in the charge sheet, the same kind of narration was stated. It is not even explained by the claimant that the contents of Ex.A1 was falsely given nor was it established as to why it is falsely recorded. There is no evidence on record to justify the plea taken by the claimant. It is possible to make a false claim as it would monetarily benefit the injured. Therefore, when the complainant went to the police shortly after the accident and stated contrary to the case pleaded by the claimant in a petition filed after the accident, in the absence of any other evidence on record, the plea and evidence of the claimant before the Tribunal cannot be taken as gospel truth. As such, the Tribunal rightly appreciated the case pleaded and the evidence placed. Coming to the conclusion, that the claimant was

¶51

5

¶52

BSB,J

¶53

MACMA.No.464 of 2006 & 477 of 2006

¶54

travelling in the tractor-trailer as gratuitous passenger. Since the policy under Ex.B1 is an Act policy i.e., third party policy, it does not cover the liability of gratuitous passenger travelling in it. The insurance company was rightly excluded from the liability. There is no merit in the appeals.

¶55