AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant against the judgment and award passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast. Track Court-III and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysore, in MVC No. 1470/2006 dated 30.6.2008. Appellant-claimant filed MVC No. 1470/2006 u/s 166 of the MV Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 22,50,000/- for the death of her mother Smt. Madamma @ Menasamma in the motor vehicle accident. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. The appellant has challenged the judgment and award of the Tribunal on the grounds that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the claim petition at least on the grounds established during the course of the trial. It is the case of the appellant that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is bad and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the deceased and herself were the daily wagers doing coolie work and did not have other family members to support them, except themselves. It is embarrassed to hold that she did not have any jural relationship with the deceased even after marking as many as seven documents as per Exs. P.1 to P.7. Therefore, the stand taken by the Tribunal that she did not have any jural relationship with the deceased is bad in law. It is further case of the appellant that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the fact that there was lot of compelling reasons that have prevented her from lodging the complaint immediately after the accident. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the deceased had been getting income at the rate of Rs. 6,000/- per month and contributing the same to the her family. These facts were not appreciated by the Tribunal. It is contended by the appellant that the Tribunal could not have held that she was not depending upon the deceased. Hence, it is contended that, viewed from all angles and probabilities of the case, the judgment and award of the Tribunal suffers from various infirmities. Therefore, it needs to be set aside after re-appreciating the available evidence on record.
Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant, during the course of his arguments, submitted that delay in filing the complaint has already been explained by the claimant during the course of the proceedings before the Tribunal. With regard to the accidental death of the deceased, the claimant has placed cogent and sufficient materials, which were not properly appreciated by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel made a submission that the police have already registered a criminal case against the driver of the Maxi Cab bearing registration No. KA-20/A-7959, who drove the vehicle towards back side and dashed against the deceased and caused accident. The learned Counsel submitted that this aspect is totally ignored by the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Tribunal, without considering the oral and documentary evidence on record properly, has wrongly come to the conclusion in recording a negative finding on issue Nos. 1 and 2 and ultimately, dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he submitted to allow the appeal and to award the compensation as prayed for by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
Contrary to this, learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 - insurance company, during the course of his arguments, submitted that the claimant utterly failed to prove that the death of the deceased is due to motor vehicle accident. The learned Counsel submitted that the claimant was also not able to place any material on record to show that the deceased was her mother and that, she is the only legal representative to maintain the claim petition. The learned Counsel further submitted that the deceased met with the injuries by falling on the steps of Police Bhavan where she was working and with an intention to claim compensation amount, the claimant made the claim petition before the Tribunal. He further submitted that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the evidence, both oral and documentary, and rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he submitted that there are no grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and award of the Tribunal.
In view of the above submissions and also the materials on record, the point that arises for consideration is as follows:
Whether the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and capricious and calls for interference by this Court?
We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the evidence, both oral and documentary, placed before the Tribunal and also the submissions made by learned Counsel appearing for both sides.
The claimant-appellant approached the Tribunal by filing a claim petition stating that one Madamma @ Menasamma, aged about 65 years, was her mother and on 13.5.2006, at about 8 p.m. within the premises of Police Bhavan, Lalitha Mahal Road, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore, the said Madamma died as Maxi Cab bearing registration No. KA-20/A-7959 came from the reverse side and dashed against her. It is further pleaded that because of the said impact, the deceased sustained injuries and immediately, she was taken to the hospital. Smt. Lakshmamma, an eye witness to the incident, was also working along with the deceased at that time. The incident took place at about 8 p.m. on the above said date. Respondent No. 1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and took it on a reverse direction and dashed against the deceased. She was taken to hospital at Mysore and as the claimant was not having sufficient fund, she could not admit the deceased to another hospital. Later, having arranged the funds, the claimant admitted the deceased to K.R. Hospital, Mysore. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 18.7.2006. The deceased was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month. Out of the said income, the deceased used to maintain herself and her daughter i.e., the appellant-claimant.
Perusing the materials on record, it shows that the incident is said to have been taken place on 13.5.2006 at about 8 p.m. and the deceased succumbed to injuries on 18.7.2006. Neither the complainant nor Smt. Lakshmamma, an eye witness to the incident, lodged a complaint to the concerned police station immediately. The documents produced at Ex. P.1 - FIR and Ex. P.2 - complaint go to show that the complaint was lodged on 18.7.2006, i.e., two months after the date of alleged accident. In the complaint at Ex. P.2, there is a mention that on 15.7.2006 itself, the complaint is lodged by the complainant against driver of the Maxi Cab and the said case is registered. The complaint dated 15.7.2006 said to have been filed was not at all produced before the Tribunal by the claimant. The spot mahazar at Ex. P.3 is dated 16.7.2006. So, spot mahazar at Ex. P.3 probablise the filing of the complaint on 15.7.2006 itself other wise, there was no occasion for the police to conduct spot mahazar on 16.7.2006. The contents of the complaint dated 15.7.2006 were very much essential for inspection by the Tribunal in deciding the case. But, the claimant withheld the said document from the inspection by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly observed that the claimant has not proved the relevant facts with cogent and satisfactory materials. Looking to Ex. P.2-complaint, it is dated 18.7.2006 i.e., the date of death of the deceased. So, there are two complaints, even according to the evidence of P.W. 1-claimant. It is no doubt true that Ex. P.2-complaint is filed against driver of the Maxi Cab. The concerned police, after investigating the case, have filed Ex. P.7-charge sheet against respondent No. 1-driver of the Maxi Cab. But, filing of the charge sheet before the Criminal Court and producing the said document itself, is not sufficient for the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased is in the motor vehicle accident, as alleged by the appellant-claimant, unless and until, cogent and satisfactory materials are placed before the Tribunal. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-claimant is not an eye witness to the accident in question. It is the case of the claimant that one Lakshmamma, another coolie, was also working along with the deceased at Police Bhavan and the said Lakshmamma was an eye witness to the incident. The said Lakshmamma has not been examined before the Tribunal to prove that the deceased died because of the injuries sustained in the said motor accident. Therefore, on the side of the appellant-claimant, absolutely, there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal to prove the motor accident alleged by her. We have observed that even with regard to lodging the complaint and on the date of the alleged accident, no complaint was lodged before the police nor there is any medico legal case reported by the concerned Doctor to the concerned police. All these aspects were extensively considered by the Tribunal and ultimately, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant has failed to prove issue No. 1 and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. There is no illegality committed by the Tribunal nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by it in dismissing the claim petition. There are no legal and justifiable grounds for this Court to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.