IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTH (7TH) DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.463 of 2011 Between: National Insurance Company Ltd., Karimnagar … Appellant And: Pasula Vijaya Laxmi @ Vijaya & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.463 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2010 in OP No.801 of 2005 on the file of the MACT cum V Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, wherein, the said application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the respondents 1 to 6 herein, claiming compensation was allowed in part, awarding a sum of Rs.9,36,920/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 6 herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.11 lakhs for the death of P.Rajireddy, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04.01.2005. The first claimant is the wife, claimants 2 to 4 are children and claimants 5 and 6 are parents of the deceased. According to the claimants, on that day, the deceased who was working as PC 1398 at Mulkanur PS, went to the office of the C.I. at Husnabad on tappal duty and was returning to Mulkanur on his Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP 15 P 8447 and reached to the outskirts of Husnabad, a lorry bearing No.ATT 3488 driven in a rash and negligent manner at high speed by its driver, dashed against the motor cycle, resulting in multiple grievous injuries including head injury and while being shifted to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. A case in Cr.No.1 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the lorry by Husnabd police. According to the claimants, the deceased was aged 42 years and was drawing salary of Rs.9429/- per month by the date of the accident. 4. The 7th respondent herein-driver, 8th respondent-owner of the lorry and the appellant-insurer filed counters, opposing the claim and denying their liability for payment of compensation inter- alia on the ground that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. The appellant-insurer further contended that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and it was falsely implicated on a later date. 5. During the enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked on behalf of the claimants. RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.20 were marked on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.ATT 3488 by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.9,36,920/-. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is that the FIR was registered in respect of unknown vehicle and the lorry ATT 3488 was subsequently implicated only for the sake of the claim application in view of the fact that the deceased was working as police constable. 7. A perusal of Ex.A.1 FIR would show that the accident occurred on 04.01.2005 and the complaint was given by one L.Veeranna Naik, wherein it is stated that the complainant was going on his vehicle and near Ellareddy well, the deceased was found coming from Husnabad side on a motor cycle and in the meanwhile, an unknown lorry also came from the Husnabad side at high speed and dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased and did not stop and drove away and that the complainant and others shifted the deceased to the hospital of Dr.Krishnareddy, but he died on the way. After due investigation, the police filed charge sheet Ex.A.2, which discloses that the crime vehicle was identified as lorry bearing No.ATT 3488 and while efforts were on for arrest of the driver, the driver surrendered before the Sub Inspector. Ex.A.5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, which shows that the crime lorry was inspected and it was found to be free from any mechanical defect. When once the police during the course of investigation have identified the crime vehicle as lorry bearing No.ATT 3488 and the driver also surrendered before the police, the mere circumstance that the deceased happened to be a police constable, no inference of false implication of the said vehicle for the sake of supporting the claim application can be drawn. The specific allegation in the FIR is that after the accident the lorry did not stop there and went away. When that is so, it was quite possible that the number of lorry could not be noticed by the complainant. Hence in the FIR, crime vehicle was described as unknown lorry. It does not however mean that the crime vehicle remained unknown for ever. The very purpose of investigation is to establish the identity of the crime vehicle and the manner in which the accident has occurred. There is absolutely no reason to suspect that the investigation has not taken place at all and that it was motivated so as to help the family of the deceased who happened to be the police constable. There is absolutely no reason as to why the police should falsely implicate the driver of the lorry against whom they had no axe to grind. It is improbable that the driver of the lorry would have taken risk of surrendering before the police without his being involved in the accident just for the sake of helping the family of the deceased, who was totally a stranger to him. The record of the criminal case clearly establishes that the deceased died on account of the accident and the identity of the crime vehicle is also duly established after investigation. 8. PW.2 one of the eye witnesses to the accident testified that the lorry bearing No.ATT 3488 came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Hero Honda motor cycle driven by the deceased from behind. In the cross- examination, it was suggested to him that he stated before the police that unknown lorry caused the accident. He denied the suggestion but he was not confronted with the said statement said to have been made under section 161 Cr.P.C. Of course, his name is not referred to in the FIR Ex.A.1 as a witness to the accident. Even assuming for a moment that he could have noticed the number of the lorry, as it has sped away and therefore, his testimony regarding the identity of the crime vehicle does not carry much weight, still the other evidence available on record particularly, the contents of the charge sheet would disclose that the identity of the crime lorry was duly established during the course of investigation. Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the lorry was falsely implicated for the sake of supporting the claim application. 9. The evidence on record does not also support the contention of the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. As per Ex.A.1 FIR and charge sheet Ex.A.2, the lorry was coming from behind and proceeding in the same direction as that of the motor cycle. The accident occurred in a broad day light at 1.30 p.m. There is nothing on record to show that there was any bend or turning of the road at the place of accident. The driver of the lorry had therefore ample opportunity to notice the motor cycle going ahead of the lorry in the same direction. If only the driver has exercised due care and caution expected of him he could have easily avoided the accident by applying the brakes and proceeding further after getting due clearance. The very fact that the lorry dashed against the motor cycle from behind on a straight road during day light is itself indicative of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. There is nothing on record to show that the deceased has contributed to the accident in any manner. 10. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has taken the net income of the deceased at Rs.7,711/- based on the salary certificate Ex.A.7 and applying the multiplier ‘15’ and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, estimated the loss of dependency at Rs.9,24,920/- and granting a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- each to the three children towards loss of love and affection, awarded total compensation of Rs.9,36,920/-. The said amount on the whole is considered to be just and reasonable and the same does not warrant any interference. 11. In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. 12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 07.12.2011 bss