Disposed

Smt. a. Manju Vani, v. The Principal Secretary, Home Department

Telangana HC20 Sept 2014WP/1559/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged the negligence of police authorities in investigating a fatal traffic accident. The Court found that despite best efforts, the vehicle could not be traced due to a discrepancy in vehicle type (lorry vs. auto-rickshaw). It closed the writ petition, granting liberty to pursue legal remedies subject to limitation rules.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition closed with liberty to petitioners to avail appropriate legal remedies; no order as to costs.

Smt. a. Manju Vani, Vs The Principal Secretary, Home… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 1559 OF 2006

¶3

DATED 20^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014.

¶4

BETWEEN

¶5

Smt. A.Manju Vani and ors

¶6

….Petitioners

¶7

And

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of AP, Secretariat, Hyderabad and ors.

¶9

….Respondents.

¶10

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶11

WRIT PETITION No. 1559 OF 2006

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for respondents.

¶14

First and third petitioners are the wife and daughter of the second petitioner respectively. One A.V.Subhakar Reddy, who is the son of the first and second petitioners, died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the intervening night of 26/27.09.2001. The deceased was their only son and he was working as a Software Engineer. On that fateful day, when the deceased Subhakar Reddy along with his friend one Mr.prasad was going on a motor bike, lorry bearing registration No. AET 5238 hit their motor bike near Panjagutta Police Station, as a result of which, the said Prasad who was driving the motor bike

¶15

died on the spot and the son of the petitioner was the pillion rider suffered grievous injuries and died subsequently on 10.10.2001 while undergoing treatment. A case in Crime No. 752 of 2001 was registered in the Police Station, Punjagutta, Hyderabad by the fifth respondent, who was the then SubInspector of Police. The said accident was witnessed by one of the Police Constables, who noticed that the lorry which caused the accident fled away from the scene of accident and that he could not able to stop the said vehicle. The present Writ Petition was filed stating that Respondents 4 and 5 were negligent in discharge of their duties as on the date of accident and had the said authorities were due diligent the said lorry could have been apprehended. In the Writ Petition, they claimed compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- for the death of their son, A.V.Subhakar Reddy.

¶16

Counter affidavit is filed by the fifth respondent stating as follows:

¶17

“2. It is respectfully submitted that it is true that an accident had occurred near Shalimar Café within Panjagutta Police Station limits on 26.9.2001 at about 11.45 p.m. in which the son of the petitioner was involved. The son of the petitioner who is the pillion rider was seriously injured and the driver of the vehicles ie motor bike bearing No./AP.7-E-5198 died on the spot. Soon after the accident the beat constable No.5357 of Panjagutta Police Station happened to pass through the said accident site and he informed the police station about the accident. The son of the petitioner was conscious at that point of time and he gave a statement after he was shifted to Government General Hospital, immediately. In the statement, the son of the petitioner stated that the number of the lorry which was responsible for the accident as AET 5238.The statement of the son of the petitioner was also recorded in the hospital. Basing on the report of the beat constable, a case in Cr.No.752/2001 under Section.304(A) IPC was registered on 27.9.2001 and investigation was taken up. During the

¶18

course of investigation, I addressed a letter to the Regional Transport Authority, Malakpet on 6.10.2001 informing them of the particulars of the lorry that was involved in the accident and sought ownership details of the said vehicle. The Regional Transport Authority in turn informed us that no such vehicle bearing No. AET 5238 is registered with them. I further submit that the letter was addressed by me to the Regional Transport Authority , Malakpet since the registration of the vehicle AET belongs to the Registration Office at Malakpet.

¶19

3. I further respectfully submit that all efforts were made to trace out the vehicle and during the course of investigation the Sub Inspector Mr. Ramesh addressed another letter to the State Road Transport Authority on 8.9.2004 seeking details of the vehicle mentioned above. In turn the Sate Road Transport Corporation Authorities have informed that the said Registration Number is allotted to an auto rickshaw owned by Mohd. Ameenuddin Kamal Quadri. Since the contents of the statement given by the son of the petitioner is not tallying with the particulars furnished by the State Road Transport Corporation Authorities and as the son of the petitioner had stated in his statement that it was a lorry which caused the accident and whereas the State Road Transport Corporation Authorities have informed us that it an auto rickshaw and thus due to this discrepancy the case was temporarily referred as UNDETECTED on 17.8.2002. The final report was filed in the XXII Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court on 17.8.2002.”

¶20

Fifth respondent denied the allegation of the petitioners that the investigation was not done properly.

¶21

When the Writ Petition came up for hearing on 25.06.2014, in view of the facts of the case, an independent report was called for from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad. Accordingly the said police official filed

¶22

a report on 30.08.2014 after recording the statements of the fifth respondent, who was the then SI of Police and now working as Dy. Superintendent of Police, V&F, Hyderabad, and, Police Constable PC.5357 who was discharging duties as Police Constable at that point of time and now retired as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. The report filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police also confirms the statements made by the fifth respondent in the counter affidavit on the material details. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the fifth respondent took timely action he could have apprehended the said lorry though the said lorry bear wrong number which was assigned to an auto-rickshaw. In the absence of apprehending the said lorry, the petitioners could not pursue their action before the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal and they could not get proper compensation for the untimely death of their son.

¶23

The counter affidavit filed by the fifth respondent as well as the report filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Hyderabad, show that after registration of the crime on 27.09.2001, immediately they gave information to the Control Room to flash the occurrence of the accident to all the neighbouring police stations and en route patrolling mobiles to apprehend the said lorry and in spite of their best effort, they could not find out the crime vehicle and when there was no hope of apprehending the crime vehicle in near future, the case was closed as undetected. Now thirteen years have elapsed and it is not possible to investigate the lapses committed by the

¶24

Police, If any, by ordering fresh investigation. Hence, the Writ Petition is closed giving liberty to the petitioners to avail appropriate remedies open to them under law, if they so advised. If they availed such remedies, the competent authority/Court shall not insist rule of limitation in view of the pendency of the Writ petition.

¶25

Miscellaneous petitions pending consideration if any in the Writ Petition shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶26

JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO

¶27

DATED 20^TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. Msnro

Smt. a. Manju Vani, v. The Principal Secretary, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. a. Manju Vani, v. The Principal Secretary, Home Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Convention of the Bapitist Chjurches of the Northern Cir Vs The District Educational Officer

K.Mala Obulamma, Vs The Superintending Engineer

Today Tappers Cooperative Society, Khammam, Vs Government of a.P., Rep. by Principal Secretary

P.C.Solomon Raju Vs The Govt of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Harijan Fishermen Mutually Aided Co.operative Vs Commissioner and Director of

P.D.R Rayalu Vs The Superintendent of Police