Smt. Mallamma vs Shaiku and Others

B. Manohar, J. - Appellant is the claimant, being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 12th October, 2010 made in MVC No. 567/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) dismissing the claim petition, has filed this appeal.

The claimant filed the claim petition contending that on 8-6-2006 at about 8.30 p.m. while the claimant was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-32/ A-1033 along with other co-passengers on Filterbed Road, a lorry bearing registration No.MYP-4004 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the autorickshaw. Due to the impact, the claimant and other co-passengers in the autorickshaw sustained grievous injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Gulbarga. Thereafter, she had taken treatment in the private hospital. She claims that she had spent huge money for her treatment and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,25,000/-. Further one of the co-passengers who had sustained injuries in the very accident also filed a claim petition in MVC No. 568/2008 claiming compensation.

In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company filed written statement denying the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. On the other hand, driver of the autorickshaw did not possess the valid and effective Driving Licence as on the date of accident. Due to negligence on the part of auto driver, the accident had occurred. Further, the offending lorry was not duly insured with respondent No. 3. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the necessary issues. In order to prove her case, the claimant got herself examined as P.W. 1 and got marked the wound certificate as Ex.P1. None of the witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent-Insurance Company, nor has any document been marked.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, rejected the claim petition solely on the ground that the claimant has not produced any documents to substantiate the occurrence of the accident and the documents produced by her are not admissible in the evidence. In the absence of necessary documents, no compensation can be awarded and dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the claimant has preferred this appeal.

Sri. Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. The xerox copies of the documents were produced before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal has not accepted the said xerox copies. In fact, the original documents have been produced in MVC No. 568/2008. The said MVC case was disposed of on the very same day and by the very same Tribunal. For the reasons best known to the said Tribunal, both the claim petitions were not clubbed together. Hence, sought for setting aside the judgment and award of the Tribunal.

Smt.Shashikala Jahagirdar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award and oral and documentary evidence.

The records clearly disclose that the claimant sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 8-6-2006 at about 8.30 p.m. while she was proceeding in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-32/A-1033 along with other co-passengers on Filterbed Road, a lorry bearing registration No. MYP-4004 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and dashed against the autorickshaw. Due to that, the claimant sustained injuries. Since the claimant could not produce the original/certified copies of the documents, the Tribunal has rejected her claim petition. However, awarded compensation to another co-passenger who had preferred MVC No. 568/2008. When the claim petitions filed are arising out of the common accident, both the claim petitions are be clubbed together and appropriate orders to be passed. Insofar as MVC No. 568/2008, the very same Tribunal accepted the case of the claimant therein and awarded compensation. Whereas insofar as the claimant in MVC No. 567/2008 it is rejected solely on the ground that the original documents are not produced. The purpose and intendment of the Motor Vehicles Act is to compensate the victims of accident. In the instant case, due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry, the claimant travelling in the autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-32/A-1033 sustained grievous injuries. It is the specific case of the claimant is that she has spent huge money towards her treatment. The insurance policy of the offending vehicle was in existence as on the said date. In fact, in the very same accident, the claimant in MVC No. 568/2008 was awarded compensation by the very same Tribunal, however, rejected the claim of the claimant in MVC No. 567/2008 on technical ground causing injustice to her.

Hence, I am of the opinion that the matter has to be remanded back to the Tribunal to reconsider the same afresh, reserving liberty to the petitioner to produce necessary documents before the Tribunal. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 12-10-2010 made in MVC No. 567/2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijapur is set aside. MVC No.567/2008 is restored to file with a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the same afresh and pass appropriate orders after accepting the necessary documents produced by the claimant.

Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 30th March, 2016.

The Registry is directed to send back the records to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gulbarga, forthwith.