IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4107 of 2003 Between: Vookanti Radhalaxmi and another .. Appellants AND Shangam Babu and 2 others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.117 of 1999, dated 29-07-2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar. Kista Reddy, husband of the 1st appellant and father of the 2nd appellant, died in a motor accident on 03-01-1998 at about 9.30P.M. and it was alleged that when he was going on his TVS Champ, an ambassador car dashed against him killing him on the spot. Karimnagar Rural Police registered the case as Crime No.5 of 1998 in respect of the accident involving a Car No.MGN-7333 and the wife and son of the deceased claimed a compensation of Rs.5,87,740/- in respect of the death of the deceased aged 52 years earning Rs.7,228/- per month as a teacher in Zilla Parishad Secondary School. The driver, owner and insurer of the ambassador car were sought to be made liable jointly and severally. In the counter filed by the driver and owner of the car, they contended that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and not the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent was claimed to be having a valid driving licence and the 2nd respondent’s car was stated to be covered by a valid and subsisting insurance at the relevant time due to which any liability has to be answered by the insurer. The insurer contested the claim putting the claimants to strict proof of the existence of the insurance and other allegations. It is stated that it was not informed about the accident and the deceased himself was responsible for the accident caused due to the head on collision of two vehicles. The owner and insurer of TVS Champ are necessary parties and hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident with the driver of the Car No.AP15 H 2747 (old No.MGN 7333), the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and the means of the claimants to pay court fee. During the enquiry, it examined PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 and B.1 to B.3. It rendered the impugned award holding that while necessary court fee was already paid, the vehicle in question was not involved in the accident and hence, the respondents cannot be made liable. Against the dismissal of the claim on such conclusion, the claimants filed the present appeal contending that the police traced the crime vehicle and registered the crime and the number of the crime vehicle was changed from MGN 7333 to AP 15 H 2747. The eye-witness account of PW.2 should have been accepted and hence, they desired the impugned award to be reversed. Heard Sri V. Satyam Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri T. Ramulu, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer and the respondents 1 and 2 are unrepresented before this Court. The point for consideration is whether the involvement of the vehicle in the accident was disproved as opined by the Tribunal and if not, whether the matter requires reconsideration in any manner? The specific claim is that the Car No.AP15 H 2747 (MGN 7333) driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent was the culprit vehicle in killing Kista Reddy. The driver and owner of the car in their counter claimed that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident and there was no fault or wrong in the manner of driving by the 1st respondent, which conveys by necessary implication, the involvement of the car in question in the accident in question. Even the 3rd respondent-insurer in its counter had claimed that the deceased himself was responsible for the accident involving head on collision of two vehicles and thereby had not denied the happening of the accident. While PW.1 was not an eye-witness to the accident, PW.2 was cited as an eye-witness even by the police in Ex.A.3-Charge sheet. PW.2, of course, was a chance witness for the accident and there was contradiction in his versions as noted by the Tribunal. But the earliest version in the First Information Report immediately after the accident referred to an ambassador car causing the accident as seen from Ex.A.1. In the inquest report, the independent panchayatdars also confirmed the same and Ex.A.3-Charge sheet shows that the identity of the car and the 1st respondent were claimed to have been disclosed during the investigation. One Satyanarayana Reddy was stated in Exs.A.1 and A.3 to be the person who first informed the brother of PW.1 about the accident. Ex.B.2-investigation report itself referred to the information from PW.2 leading to the identification of the car and the driver and mere lapse of time was considered as a doubtful circumstance in this regard. Though the circumstances relied on by the Tribunal to disbelieve the involvement of the car in question in the accident are not irrelevant, it is seen from the record that U. Satyanarayana Reddy, who was the first informant, was not attempted to be examined before the Tribunal by either party. Even Pingali Vibhishan Reddy, who gave the First Information Report on the information of Satyanarayana Reddy, was also not examined and the investigating officer, who filed Ex.A.3-Charge sheet or any other person connected with this accident, is not examined to know how the identification of the car driver became possible. The judgment of the Criminal Court allegedly exonerating the 1st respondent is also not before the Tribunal to know the reasons for such acquittal and the 1st respondent examined as RW.1 was not cross-examined by the claimants. Similar was the version of RWs.2 to 4, the owner of the car, the investigator appointed by the insurer and the Branch Manager of the insurer, who were not cross-examined and the disbelief in the credibility of PW.1 alone led to the failure of the claimants before the Tribunal. Under the circumstances, as requested by the learned counsel for the appellants, a reasonable opportunity has to be given to the claimants to produce such relevant evidence, which was not produced earlier before the Tribunal and also make efforts to subject the version of RWs.1 to 4 to cross-examination to test their veracity, if they so desire and if the Tribunal were to consider such request in the interests of justice favourably. As the death of Kista Reddy in a motor accident is never in dispute, keeping in view the object and purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in providing just and adequate compensation to the dependants of the deceased, the matter has to be remitted back to the Tribunal accordingly. In the result, the award dated 29-07-2003 in O.P.No.117 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Karimnagar, is set aside and the said O.P. is remitted back to the Tribunal for giving every reasonable opportunity to the claimants to adduce such further evidence as they desire to produce including cross-examination of RWs.1 to 4 already examined on the Tribunal being satisfied about the reasonableness and tenability of such request for recalling RWs.1 to 4 and for determination of the claim on merits in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 03-03-2011 Ksn