IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3393 of 2003 Between: Sri Gedda Pydinaidu .. Appellant AND Sri Bogo Bhagavan & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3393 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.700 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 20.06.2003. 2. The claimant filed the claim against the driver of the APSRTC bus and the corporation, represented by two officials, for a compensation of Rs.15,000/- out of which Rs.12,000/- is stated to be the cost of the cow and Rs.3,000/- is stated to be the expenses of transport, medicines and extra nourishment to the cow. It was claimed that on 27.09.1998 at about 11.00 a.m., the first respondent driving RTC bus No.AP 10Z 5879 hit the cow and the cow sustained severe injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. In spite of treatment at the veterinary dispensary, the cow died after 10 days and the claimant claimed that he is living only by selling the cow milk and had no other means. 3. While the driver remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the corporation contested the claim by not admitting the claims made by the claimant and putting the claimant to strict proof. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award not accepting the evidence of P.W.1 and opining that Ex.A-1-challan and receipt did not mention about the cow being injury in the accident and Ex.A-2-Death Certificate did not mention about the death of the cow due to the injuries received in the accident. As the doctor who issued Exs.A-2 and A-4, Death Certificate and Wound Certificate, was not examined, the Tribunal opined that the cow being injured in the accident was not probablised and hence, dismissed the claim without costs. 6. The claimant filed the appeal contending that the evidence through Ex.A-1 positively probablising negligence on the part of the driver and Exs.A-2 and A-4 about the death of the cow due to the injuries received in the accident could not have been rejected and hence, the claimant desired the claim to be allowed. 7. Sri Gudapati Venkat Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri C. Appaiah Sarma, learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3 are heard, while the first respondent/driver did not enter appearance before this Court and was in fact given up by the appellant. 8. The points for consideration are whether the cow of the appellant was injured in the accident involving the APSRTC bus driven by the first respondent as alleged, whether the cow died due to the injuries received in the accident and if so, whether the appellant is entitled to compensation from respondents 2 and 3? 9. The claimant as P.W.1 deposed before the Tribunal on oath about the cow sustaining a fracture injury in the leg in the accident and dying after three months in spite of treatment. He stated that he purchased the cow three months before the accident and denied that the cow did not die due to any injury sustained in the accident. The driver of the bus or the corporation did not adduce any evidence to contradict P.W.1 and in the cross-examination for respondents 2 and 3, Ex.A-1-challan and receipt was not disputed. The genuineness of Exs.A-1 to A-4 was not questioned during the cross-examination. Ex.A-1-challan and receipt clearly shows that the first respondent was issued the challan for an offence punishable under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which occurred on 27.09.1998 at 11.00 a.m. It was that incident that was claimed by P.W.1 as the accident in which his cow was injured and Ex.A-2-Death Certificate of the cow was elaborated in Ex.A-4 in which the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Denkada certified about the cow meeting with an accident on 27.09.1998 and suffering a fracture in the lower part of the left hind limb. The Veterinary doctor also certified that the limb had to be later amputated and it was obvious from Exs.A-2 and A- 4 that the cow died due to that injury. The value of the cow was certified to be Rs.12,000/- prior to the accident and it was stated to be yielding 10 litres of milk a day according to Ex.A-3-Valuation Certificate of the cow issued by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Denkada. In the absence of any contrary evidence to the claims of P.W.1 or the contents of Exs.A-1 to A-4, the Tribunal should not have rejected the claims of the claimant in toto on hypothetical considerations. When Ex.A-1 proved that the first respondent was prosecuted for driving the bus dangerously at about the same time at which the claimant alleged his cow to have been injured in the accident involving the same bus driven by the first respondent, the link between Ex.A-1 and the claim of P.W.1 ought to have been considered as probablised and the consequential probable injuries which the cow suffered leading to its death should have been considered as probablised by Exs.A-2 to A-4 issued by an independent public servant. 10. If so, the claimant is entitled to just and adequate compensation from respondents 2 and 3 representing the APSRTC in respect of the death of his cow, though there being no appeal as of now against the first respondent, the driver of the bus, no liability can be fastened to him, but the corporation can alone be still vicariously liable. The value of the cow was stated by the Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Denkada, a public servant, to be Rs.12,000/- before the accident. To disbelieve it, there is no evidence and though the claimant claimed Rs.3,000/- to be the expenses towards medicines, treatment, extra nourishment, etc., in the absence of any proof of such expenses and in view of the treatment being at the Government Veterinary Hospital which was free, a sum of Rs.1,000/- can be considered to be reimbursed toward any such inevitable expenses. The total compensation of Rs.13,000/- can carry interest at 6% per annum and also proportionate costs keeping in view the length of time for which interest has to be paid by respondents 2 and 3. 11. In the result, the award in O.P.No.700 of 2001, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, dated 20.06.2003, is set aside and the said O.P.No.700 of 2001 is allowed in part by awarding a compensation of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs payable by the respondents 2 and 3 to the claim and the appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10th February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3393 of 2003 Date: 10th February, 2011 KL