THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.M.A.NO.2882 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This is an Appeal preferred by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Judgment rendered in M.V.O.P.No.156 of 1998, by the District Judge –cum- Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor. The claimant/appellant is the owner of a tractor and trailer bearing registration No. AP-27-U-448. He has made a claim for compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the damage that has been caused to the trailer and tractor on 06-09-1997 at about 8-15 am, involving a bus owned by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (henceforth referred to as the Corporation) – respondent herein. It is the case of the claimant that the driver of the tractor, together with the trailer, has taken the tractor to Palamaner to transport certain goods. At about 8-15 am, when the tractor reached Kolamasinapalle village on Palamaner – Nellipatla road, the bus bearing registration No. A.P-9Z-309, belonging to the Corporation, which was coming from behind the tractor, dashed against the trailer, initially, and subsequently, the tractor. It is alleged that due to the said impact, the axil of the trailer was broken and that the trailer went and hit the tractor also, causing damage to the engine of the tractor. Due to the impact of the bus to the tractor, the right rear wheel of the tractor has broken down. It is further alleged that on account of this accident, the tractor and trailer were confined to the garage for attending to the repairs for about 20 days and, in the process, sustained a loss of Rs.20,000/- due to the vehicle not becoming available for transportation business. Further, it is alleged that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was spent for attending to the repairs and a sum of Rs.5,000/- has been spent for purchasing a new tyre for the tractor for the purpose of replacing the damaged one. Thus, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been claimed as compensation. The respondents have contested the case. It has been specifically pleaded that the bus, which was coming from behind the tractor and trailer, while it was overtaking the tractor after securing the necessary signal to do so, the tractor and trailer suddenly started approaching towards right side of the road without any justification and, in the process, the bus came in contact with the trailer and not the tractor and that no specific damage, for seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.50,000/-, has been caused to the tractor and trailer. The claimant has examined himself as PW-1. His son, who was driving the tractor at the relevant time, has been examined as PW-2. An independent witness has been examined as PW-3. Five documents Exs. A-1 to A- 5 have been got marked. On behalf of the Corporation, the driver of the bus has been examined as RW-1 and the certified copy of the Judgment, rendered by the Criminal Court in the criminal case filed by the Police, has been marked as Ex.B-1. PW-1 is not an eyewitness. He was the owner of the tractor and trailer. He has deposed that upon being informed of the accident by PW-2, he went to the accident spot, inspected the tractor and trailer and then lodged the FIR with the Police at Palamaner. He further submits that the tractor and trailer have been confined to a mechanic shed/garage at Palamaner and got repaired there, for which it took 20 days, hence, the claim amount is sought to be justified. Ex.A-2, a bill issued by a firm - Priya Types, Palamaner on 09-09-1997, has been got marked to vouch that a new tyre has been purchased for replacing the damaged tyre. Exs. A-4 and A-5 are two bills issued by Vinny Agencies, Palamaner evidencing the purchase of certain spare parts, which are needed for putting the vehicle back on road, have been filed. Ex.A-3 is a bill issued by Sri Balaji Engineering Works, Palamaner, to establish that the tractor and trailer are confined to their garage for getting repaired. PW-2, who is the driver of the tractor at the relevant point of time, has stated that the offending bus came from behind the tractor and trailer and that it dashed initially the rear portion of the trailer and subsequently, went ahead and hit the tractor also. PW-3 is said to be a person sitting in the trailer at the time of accident and he has stated that he has jumped off the trailer, noticing the accident. RW-1, the driver of the bus, has deposed that it is a fact that his bus was following the tractor and trailer from behind and that he was given the necessary signal by the driver of the tractor to overtake him and hence while he was overtaking the tractor and trailer, the trailer suddenly started moving on to the right side of the road even before the bus has completely passed it and in that process the trailer of the tractor came and hit the bus and that the bus has not hit the tractor at all. The driver of the bus has also filed Ex.B-1 to demonstrate that the Criminal Court has acquitted him of the charge, after finding that there is no material to suspect the bus to have caused the accident in question. Therefore, the respondents pleaded before the Tribunal that the accident in question had occasioned wholly due to the negligence of the tractor driver and not because of the negligence attributable to the bus or its driver. It is apt to observe firstly, that the tractor and trailer had come in contact with the bus - that part of the fact was held established; the next question is, as to, who is responsible to have caused such an accident. If the claimant were to establish that the accident had occasioned wholly due to the negligence of the driver of the Corporation’s bus, he ought to have lead material evidence on his behalf to establish the probability of the impact being caused only by the Corporation bus. No such attempt has been made. There is any amount of contradiction between the statements made by PWs. 1, 2 and 3 in that regard. If the Corporation bus was overtaking the tractor and trailer, the bus is bound to be on to the right side of the said tractor and trailer. PW-2 has deposed that the bus has hit the left rear portion of the tractor and trailer. This is improbable. Unless the Corporation bus attempted to overtake the tractor and trailer from a wrong side, i.e., from the left side, there will be no occasion for an impact between the bus and the left rear portion of the trailer of the tractor. As already noticed, PW-1 is not an eyewitness. Upon being informed of the accident, he arrived at the accident site, inspected the tractor and trailer and the bus, and on the basis of the facts gathered by him, he lodged Ex.A-1 FIR with the Police. Therefore, there is only an oral evidence of PW-1 and the contra evidence of RW-1, as to how the accident was caused. The Corporation driver, who has been examined as RW-1, has clearly deposed that he has been given the necessary signal by the driver of the tractor to overtake the said vehicle and that even before the process of overtaking the said vehicle was complete, the tractor and trailer started moving on to its right side and consequently, the left rear side of the bus came in contract with the right side portion of the tractor and trailer. He has further stated clearly that the bus has never hit the tractor, but it is the trailer, which hit the tractor. Though RW-1 has been cross-examined, nothing worthwhile has been extracted from him. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the tractor and trailer, which suddenly started moving on to its right side, have come in contact with the bus. PW-2 is not at all consistent in his evidence. In the absence of any other credible evidence on the part of the claimant, the fact that the Tribunal has placed reliance upon the deposition of RW-1 cannot be considered as to have vitiated the evaluation of the merits of the claim. I am of the opinion that in the absence of any credible evidence in the claim, the finding that could be drawn is that the trailer, obviously, because of its own mechanical failure, could have possibly started moving on to its right side even before the bus had completely overtaken. The finding in this regard is, therefore, reasonable and justified. The claim also appears to be an untenable one. Though in Ex.A-1 FIR, it is alleged by PW-1 that due to the accident, damage of nearly Rs.10,000/- has been caused to the tractor and trailer. The claim has been inflated to show that for the repairs, a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been spent. It could be true that, as at the time, the FIR is lodged, there may not have been any accurate assessment made towards the likely costs for it’s repair, but, however PW1 could not have made such a gross miscalculation, either. At this stage it is worth looking at Exs. A-2 to A-5. Exs.A-4 and A-5 have been issued by Vinny Agencies, Palamaner, Chittoor District, on 19-09-1997. Both are cash bills. While Ex.A-5 is issued to show that one kilogram of grease valued at Rs.85/- has been purchased, Ex.A-4 discloses that some spare parts worth Rs.450/- have been purchased on the same day. Ex.A-4 cash bill bears serial No.709, Ex.A-5 bears serial No.3216. It is impossible to believe that at a smalltime place like Palamaner, nearly 2500 transactions would have taken place on the same day. Even if it is assumed that one of these 2 bill scould have been issued on 11- 09-1997, it would be reasonable to assume that the bill numbers would not have been so vastly different from each other. As is seen, Ex.A-4 bears bill No.709, while Ex.A-5 bears bill No.3216. Therefore, these bills appear to be not genuine at all. Now, let us focus on Ex.A-2. Ex.A-2 is a cash bill bearing No. 260, issued by Priya Tyres, Palamaner on 09-09-1997. It shows that one tractor rear tyre of ‘MRF’ make was purchased by the claimant valued at Rs.6,325/-. If PW-1/claimant-appellant had purchased a tractor rear tyre spending Rs.6,325/-, he would not have failed to specifically mention the said fact in the claim petition, which is filed in February 1998, though he has vaguely mentioned that a rear tyre has been purchased by him under bill No.260 from Priya Tyres, Palamaner. This apart, it is mentioned that certain spare parts have been purchased from Balaji Tractor Spares. As noticed supra, no bills have been produced for the spares said to have been purchased from Sri Balaji Tractor Spares, nor for the repair works undertaken by Durga Tractor works. Though Sri Balaji Engineering works has given the bill dated 15-09-1997 – Ex.A-3, for a sum of Rs.4,850/-, no one from the said Engineering firm has been examined as a witness to establish that they have attended to the repair works of the tractor and trailer. Therefore, it appears that the claim has been purposefully inflated by the claimant appellant. The presence of PW-3 at the time of accident has not been believed at all by the Tribunal. In this respect, there is hardly any material on record to believe that PW- 3 was present at the time of accident. In view of the scarce material on record, it appears that the Corporation bus is nowhere responsible for causing the accident. I am not being persuaded to take a different view from what has been taken by the Tribunal and hence, I do not find any merit in this Appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs. -------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J 24th December 2009 mrk/knk