Dismissed

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Yousuf Bee

Telangana HC4 Jul 2012CMA/3377/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge court dismissed an appeal by an insurance company against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award. The court held that while the accident occurred at midnight with no direct eyewitnesses, the claimants sufficiently proved the vehicle's involvement through a prior criminal conviction of the driver, police investigation reports, and court records. Thus, the finding of liability was

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the appellant insurance company was dismissed; no order as to costs.

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shaik… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

*** THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO**

¶2

+ C.M.A.No.3377 of 2004

¶3

% DATE: 04.07.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

# The National Insurance Co.Ltd.

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

And

¶8

$ Shaik Yousuf Bee and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

! Counsel for the Appellant: Smt S.A.V.Ratnam

¶11

^ Counsel for respondents: Sri Kouturi Vijay Kumar

¶12

< GIST:

¶13

>HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred:

¶14

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶15

CMA NO. 3377 OF 2004

¶16

DATED: 04.07.2012

¶17

Between:

¶18

The National Insurance Co.Ltd. .. Appellant And Shaik Yousuf Bee and others

¶19

.. Respondents

¶20

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

CMA NO. 3377 OF 2004

¶22

JUDGMENT:

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellantinsurance company and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

¶24

2. This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited which was the third respondent before the Tribunal below against the order dated 22.03.2004 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam in O.P.No.616 of 1997.

¶25

3. Shaik Afzal Miya, a carpenter, aged 30 years while returning fro m Domercharla Village by walk, was knocked down by an ambassador car at about 12.30 AM, as a result of which he fell down and the said car ran over him. On receiving severe injuries, he died on the spot. One P. Ramulu, who was coming by walk along with the deceased informed PW.1, the wife of the deceased about the accident. However, a case in Crime No.15 of 1997 came to be registered at Wadepally Police Station basing on the information received from a third party. The said report was to the effect that while

¶26

the deceased was proceeding by walk, an ambassador car driven in a rash and negligent manner at fast speed, dashed him causing his instantaneous death. The fact, therefore, remains that in the first information report, a copy of which is marked as Ex.A.1, the number of the offending vehicle was not furnished. The police, however, conducted investigation and ultimately found that the car bearing No.API 3411 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. The police after thorough investigation charge sheeted Mirza Azmat Baig, the driver of the said vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC on the ground that he caused the death of the deceased by driving the ambassador car bearing No. API 3411 in a rash and negligent manner.

¶27

4. The claimants/respondents 1 to 4, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,60,000/-.

¶28

5. The learned Tribunal after making enquiry into the claim recorded a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambassador car bearing No. API 3411 and held that the 6^th respondent, who is the owner of the said offending vehicle and the appellant insurance company with which it was insured at material time are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal under various heads awarded compensation of Rs.1,73,200/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶29

6. In this appeal, the appellant/insurance company though

¶30

contended that the compensation granted is on higher side, it’s main contention appears to be that the learned Tribunal recorded an erroneous fining that the accident was caused due to involvement of the said car bearing No. AP 01 3411.

¶31

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would contend that the first information report does not contain the number of the offending vehicle and subsequently, the claimants with the connivance of the owner, driver of the car bearing No. API 3411 and with the help of the police created a version that the said vehicle was involved in the accident. The learned counsel would submit that since the finding of the learned Tribunal as to the involvement of the said vehicle is not based on evidence, it is liable to be set aside in this appeal and that the appellant/insurance company be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants.

¶32

8. It is true that the claimants did not examine any eyewitness to the accident. PW.1-Shaik Yousuf Bee, the wife of the deceased is not a direct witness to the accident. Ex.A.1-certified copy of the first information report reveals that the accident occurred as a result of rash and negligent driving of an ambassador car though the number of the said vehicle is not mentioned in the first information report which was registered basing on the information furnished by a third party. Since the accident occurred at mid-night, it was not possible for others to witness the said accident. The accident occurred on 23.02.1997 mid-night. The police after making investigation into the offence could detect the crime vehicle on 04.03.1997 and brought the same to the police station. Soonafter that the Motor Vehicles

¶33

Inspector inspected the said vehicle on 05.03.1997. The then SubInspector of Police, Wadapally Police Station was examined by the Tribunal as CW.1 on the request made by the claimants. CW.1 stated in his evidence that P.Ramulu, who was proceeding along with the deceased noted down the number of the vehicle. His evidence also further goes to show that basing on the evidence of P.Ramulu, they could be able to trace out the vehicle on 04.03.1997 at Kodad and the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the car on 05.03.1997. The evidence of CW1 thus reveals that after making thorough investigation, the police found the vehicle involved in the accident and arrested the 5^th respondent, driver of the vehicle on 17.03.1997. Another important aspect in this case is that after filing of the charge sheet by the police against the 5^th respondent under Section 304-A IPC, the 5^th respondent, driver of the vehicle was summoned to the Court and he admitted commission of offence before the magistrate and in pursuance thereof, he was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Miryalaguda. The said fact is established by the claimants by filing Ex.A.6-certified copy of the judgment in C.C.No.96 of 1997. The learned Tribunal below considering all these aspects arrived at the conclusion that despite the eyewitness to the accident not being examined the claimants proved by the other evidence that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car by the 5^th respondent, driver of the vehicle.

¶34

9. Here it requires to be noticed is that the occurrence of accident

¶35

and the involvement of the offending vehicle in a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act need not be established by the claimants beyond reasonable doubt as is required for proof of the guilt of the accused in a criminal case by the prosecution. It is enough for the claimants to establish the involvement of the vehicle basing on preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, a summary procedure is contemplated for the Tribunals constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to be followed in the enquiries in claim cases arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. The evidence let in should be summary in nature and the Tribunal need not follow the strict rules of evidence and it can adopt it’s own procedure for conducting enquiries into the claims.

¶36

10. In the instant case, two factors assume importance. They are (1) that the police after conducting thorough investigation found that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the ambassador car bearing No. API 3411 by the 5^th respondent/driver. The 5^th respondent/driver was charge sheeted for the offence of causing death by rash and negligent driving. For the said offence before the magistrate, he was convicted under Section 304-A IPC and was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- on his own admission. Except raising a mere contention in the counter that the 5^th and 6^th respondents, who are the driver and the owner of the ambassador car bearing No. API 3411 colluded with the claimants to enable them to claim compensation, no evidence is let in by the appellant/insurance company to prove the said fact. PW1, an official of the insurance company stated in his evidence that the appellant/insurance company appointed an investigator, who investigated in to the cause of the

¶37

accident and filed a report. The insurance company did not examine the said investigator nor did it mark the report prepared by the investigator. When the claimants adduced evidence in proof of the involvement of ambassador car bearing No.API 3411 in the accident, it is obligatory on the part of the appellant/insurance company to summon the owner and driver of the said vehicle and cross examine them to elicit the fact that whether they have colluded with the claimants, but it did not do so. Thus, in the instant case, there is enough evidence which enabled the Tribunal to record a finding that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambassador car bearing No. API 3411. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal being based on convincing and reliable evidence, the said finding cannot be set aside in the present appeal on the mere ground that no eye witness to the accident was examined by the claimants. Since the accident occurred at mid night and nonwitnessed the accident the only course left open to the claimants to prove the accident and involvement of the offending vehicle can be only by the evidence other than that of the eye witness.

¶38

11. For the foregoing reasons, I absolutely see no force in the contention that the ambassador car bearing No. API 3411 was not involved in the accident. The appeal filed by the appellant/insurance company, therefore, fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

___________________ Date: 04.07.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J Note : L.R copy to be marked

¶40

b/o kvrm

¶41

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶42

CMA NO. 3377 OF 2004

¶43

DATED: 04.07.2012

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Yousuf Bee

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The National Insurance Company Limited v. Shaik Yousuf Bee

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

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Jadhav Madhu

B.M. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Kalakada Fathima BEE.AND5 Others

M/s. Apsrtc, rep. by its General Manager, Vs Thipparabayam Anitha

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs M. Ravi

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Saddu Venkata Narayana

Haridasu Seshagiri Rao, Vs Ashok Leyland Limited, Regional Sales Office