AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Chandra Kumar, J.—This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 22.11.2004 passed in O.P. No. 562 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (for short ''the Tribunal'').
The parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The 1st claimant is the daughter and the 2nd claimant is the grand daughter of the deceased. The claimants'' case is that the deceased was aged about 55 years, was working as coolie and earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. Their further case is that on 21.04.2002 at about 05.00 A.M., while the deceased along with his friend were walking along the road and proceeding on R.P. road at Akividu, it is alleged that the driver of the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP-37-P-6869 drove the same in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot. The claimants claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
The 1st respondent-driver of the vehicle, the 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. The respondents contested the matter on various grounds.
The Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing No. AP-37-P-6869, driven by its driver-1st respondent?
2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation? If so, to what amount, against which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
On behalf of claimants, 1st claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and one witness T. Bhimayya was examined as P.W. 2 and Exs. A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of respondents, rider of the motorcycle was examined as R.W. 1 and R.Ws. 2 and 3 were examined and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the deceased was in a drunken state.
R.W. 1 is the rider of the motorcycle. According to him, the deceased suddenly crossed the road and therefore he applied sudden brakes, however, the motorcycle dashed against the deceased. R.W. 1 admitted that he has no valid driving license at the time of accident. R.W. 2 also deposed that the deceased was crossing road and therefore R.W. 1 had applied sudden brakes, however, the deceased touched the handle bar and fell down. R.W. 3 is examined by the insurance company contending that the driver of the motorcycle has not having valid driving license. The evidence of R.W. 2 was disbelieved on the ground that he was not examined by the police. Many persons may witness the accident, it is not necessary that all the persons who witnessed the accident should report the matter to the police. Similarly, police is not expected to examine all such persons who witnessed the accident. Similarly, all those persons need not be examined before the Tribunal. Merely because a person is not examined by the police, his evidence cannot be disbelieved. The finding of the Tribunal on this aspect is incorrect. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased was in a drunken state. Ex. A3 does not show that the deceased was in a drunken state. Coming to the evidence of R.Ws. 1 and 2, even if it is assumed that the deceased was crossing the road, it cannot be said that he was totally negligent. Normally, roads are being used by not only the vehicle drivers, sometimes people walk along the road and in case of necessity they cross the roads. Crossing of road cannot be said to be a mistake. The drivers have to observe whether any person is crossing the road or not. Whenever, they are in the limits of the town, they have to reduce the speed and observe if the persons or cattle are crossing the road. So, in the circumstances, I hold that the driver of the motorcycle is responsible for the accident. Therefore, this issue is decided accordingly.
According to P.W. 1, deceased was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month. Unfortunately, there is no cross appeal, so the amount cannot be reduced. Now, coming to the aspect of not holding valid driving license by the driver of the vehicle, even if the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving license, in view of the settled legal position, the insurance company should satisfy the decree at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.
Subject to the observations made supra, the appeal is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.