IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.915 of 2003 Between: The United Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant AND Smt. N. Ilamma & 6 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.915 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.672 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, dated 08.10.2002. 2. The deceased N. Soma Narsaiah was the driver of the lorry No.API 8381 and on 03.06.1996 at about 6.30 a.m., his lorry was involved in a motor accident with another lorry No.AEK 7097 and Soma Narsaiah died due to the injuries suffered in the accident. His wife, parents and three children claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the other lorry AEK 7097 claiming Soma Narsaiah, aged 26 years, to be earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a driver. 3. Chityal Police were claimed to have registered Crime No.76 of 1996 in respect of the accident. 4. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer put the claimants to strict proof of all the allegations and stated the compensation claimed to be excessive. 5. The Tribunal framed issues about the death of Soma Narsaiah in the accident to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry AEK 7097, subsisting insurance with the second respondent and the entitlement of the claimants to any compensation. 6. The Tribunal examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8 and B-1 during the course of the enquiry. 7. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award referring to the evidence of P.W.2 claiming to be working as a cleaner in the lorry driven by the deceased alleging rashness and negligence in driving by the driver of the other lorry and claiming that the other lorry hit the lorry driven by the deceased. The Tribunal observed that the evidence of R.W.1, the Senior Assistant of the insurer, admitted the ignorance of R.W.1 about how he came to know about the absence of any case against their lorry and in view of the absence of any reason to disbelieve P.W.2, the Tribunal concluded the accident to be due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of other lorry. The Tribunal took the age of the deceased as 30 years as stated in the Inquest Report-Ex.A-2 and the Post Mortem Report-Ex.A-3. It took the contribution of the deceased working as a driver at Rs.1,000/-per month and applied a multiplier of 16.51. It also considered the claimants to be entitled to the loss of consortium at Rs.15,000/-. But as the claim is only for Rs.2,00,000/-, the same was awarded in full with interest at 9% per annum and costs. The Tribunal also gave directions about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. 8. The insurer filed the appeal contending that the accident took place, according to the police investigation, due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.API 8381 driven by the deceased and the evidence of P.W.2 could not have been believed when no charge sheet was filed only due to the death of Soma Narsaiah. Ex.A-1-First Information Report was registered only against the deceased driver and as held in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MADRAS VS. B. MALLA REDDY AND OTHERS[1], the insurer is not liable in such an event. The insurer also claimed that the Tribunal erred in granting the entire compensation as claimed. 9. Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Madhav Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 are heard, while none entered appearance before this Court on behalf of the 7th respondent/owner of the lorry. 10. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are firstly about the responsibility for the accident and secondly about the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and to what extent and from whom? 11. The earliest version in the First Information Report- Ex.A-1 was on the strength of the statement in a written complaint by a passer by to Chityal Police within 2 ½ hours after the accident. The informant alleged that the driver of the vehicle No.API 8381 drove the vehicle at high speed and rashly and negligently and hit the lorry No.AEK 7097 resulting in injuries to the driver of vehicle No.API 8381, the owner of the mangoes transported in that vehicle and the cleaner of that vehicle. The identity of the driver was also ascertained and specified by the informant. The earliest version clearly specified the cleaner of vehicle No.API 8381 to be N. Kumar of Biknoor, Warangal, who received simple injuries. The copy of the final report submitted by the police in the crime shows that after registration of the crime on the report of the passer by, the police have not examined any witness and have not seized any properties and have treated the case as action abated due to the accused driver succumbing to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The certificate issued by Chityal Police on 22.10.2002 is also to the same effect and thus, whatever was stated by the passer by in Ex.A-1-First Information Report was obviously not tested by the police by any independent investigation and collection of any oral or documentary or direct or circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the contents of Ex.A-1-First Information Report about the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.API 8381 leading to the accident remained unverified allegations only. 12. Though the fact that an independent person made such allegations immediately after the accident is a circumstance against the absence of any culpability on the part of the deceased driver, any such circumstance was sought to be repelled by the evidence of P.W.2, the cleaner of the vehicle whose presence in the vehicle and whose sustaining injuries in the accident were specified in Ex.A-1-First Information Report itself. P.W.2 positively stated that the deceased driver slowed down the lorry and took it to the left side in spite of which the opposite lorry, driven rashly and negligently, hit against their vehicle resulting in fatal injuries to the driver of the vehicle. He tried to explain that the deceased was accompanied by him to the city for treatment due to which he could not give any report to the police, but he claimed to have informed the police after half an hour about the accident. He also claimed that he was not examined by the police during the investigation which is corroborated by the final report. He also stated about the owner of the mangoes being transported in the van also being injured in the accident which was also stated in Ex.A-1-First Information Report. Though P.W.2 might be working since an year earlier as cleaner in the vehicle and might have had some affinity towards the deceased driver, the same cannot be construed as sufficient reason to consider his claims to be false. Mere interestedness is no indication of falsity and the prima facie burden of proof on the claimants cannot be considered to have not been discharged by the evidence of P.W.2 under the circumstances. 13. The evidence of R.W.1, the Senior Assistant of the insurer claiming that the investigation by the police disclosed that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the van No.API 8381 is not correct as the police, after registering the crime against the deceased van driver, did not conduct any investigation at all and closed the case as abated on his death. The discharge of the burden of proof on the claimants by examining P.W.2 was not contradicted by any other evidence on behalf of the respondents like producing the owner of the mangoes carried in the van who also suffered injuries in the accident or the informant on whose complaint the crime was registered or the driver of the other lorry or any other direct or circumstantial witness. The Tribunal had the benefit of observing the demeanour of the witness and considered P.W.2 to be dependable to deviate from which very strong and compelling reasons are required. On a close consideration of all the facts and circumstances, it is to be, therefore, concluded that the conclusion of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the other lorry being the cause for the accident notwithstanding the First Information Report is not susceptible for interference in this appeal. 14. If the finding of fact by the Tribunal were to be upheld, the decisions reported in B. MALLA REDDY’s case (supra 1) and UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ARMOOR BRANCH, NIZAMABAD DIST. VS. KORE LAXMI AND OTHERS[2] have no application to the present facts. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the contribution to the family to be only Rs.1,000/- per month and it applied a multiplier of 16.51 for the age of 30 years mentioned in Ex.A-2-Inquest Report and Ex.A-3-Post Mortem Report. The multiplier is little less than what could have been applied as per SARLA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[3], but as the entire claim of the claimants for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded and not challenged by the claimants, the quantum needs no upward or downward revision when the income taken into account by the Tribunal was much less than the minimum wages which the driver would have earned at about the relevant time. 16. Under the circumstances, the impugned award cannot be interfered with and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 3rd February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.915 of 2003 Date: 3rd February, 2011 KL [1] 2002 (6) ALD 137 (DB) [2] 2002 (2) ALD 811 [3] 2009 ACJ 1298