IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1775 OF 2003 Between : The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., .... APPELLANT A N D Sagra Begum and others …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.1775 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 15.11.2002 in O.P.No.625 of 1998 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, whereby a compensation of Rs.2,08,000/- was awarded to the claimants as against their claim of Rs.2,50,000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident because he sat in front of the lorry, while the said lorry was in motion. As seen from the record, the deceased while chasing the offending lorry came in front of it; and that the driver of the offending lorry dashed against him, resulting in his instantaneous death. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/petitioners contended that if the driver of the lorry was diligent he can avert the accident and that there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. 4. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable? 5. As seen from the judgment, on 07.07.1997 the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-37/T-1791 arranged by Transport Office, loaded Maize bags at Peddapalli to handover the same to Agro Seeds Centre at Velpuru. On 10.07.1997 when the said lorry was proceeding with zink plates, to detain the said lorry, the deceased and others reached near Sathupalli Village and after finding the lorry, when the deceased tried to stop the lorry, the driver of the offending lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased died on the spot. During the investigation, the police found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry and registered a case in Crime No.76 of 1997 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver of the lorry. 6. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry, P.W.2 was examined. P.W.2 is the direct witness to the accident and he reiterated that on 10.07.1997, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased. Ex.A.1 is photostat copy of First Information Report; Ex.A.2 is photostat copy of Inquest report and Ex.A.3 is photostat copy of Postmortem examination report. All these documents would clearly reveal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending lorry. 7. The driver of the lorry having visualized the deceased person on the road, drove the same at high speed at the peril of the deceased resulting in the accident. Therefore, it can be said without any hesitation that the driver of the offending lorry, having knew that if the lorry dashes the deceased would certainly lead to the death of the deceased, ultimately drove the vehicle resulting to the accident and instantaneous death of the deceased. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it can be said that the driver of the offending lorry with his knowledge caused the accident, in which the deceased died on the spot. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed while confirming the order of the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J FEBRUARY 03, 2011. YVL