THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.M.A.No.1737 OF 2000 ORDER: This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (‘the Act’, for short), has been preferred by the 2nd respondent insurer in O.P.No.91 of 1996, aggrieved by the Award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad (henceforth referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), dated 14-05- 1998, allowing the claim made by respondents 1 to 4 herein, in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The facts, which are relevant for our inquiry, are in a very narrow compass. It is stated that on 31-05-1995, at about 4-00 pm, an accident was caused involving a tractor and trailor bearing registration Nos. API T 8642 & 8643, respectively. The tractor was owned by the 1st respondent in O.P., who is the 5th respondent herein. It was insured with the appellant company. The tractor was going to Kamarvelly and when it reached near the house of one Gajjela Pentaiah in Narayanapur Village, one of the loading-unloading labour by name Krishnamurthy, fell down from the trailor due to the rash and negligent manner of driving of the said tractor. He sustained multiple injuries all over his body and succumbed to those injuries. The Police at Rebbena Police Station, have registered a case in Crime No.54 of 1995 under Section 304-A IPC. The 1st respondent herein, who was the 1st claimant, was the wife of the deceased Krishnamurthy. Respondents 3 and to 4 herein are the parents of the deceased Krishnamurthy, while the 2nd respondent was, said to be, his dependant brother. It was stated that at the time of death Sri Krishnamurthy was aged about 22 years and was earning Rs.1,500/- per month. The 1st respondent owner in the O.P., remained ex parte. The appellant insurance company contested the matter. It specifically averred that the accident had not occasioned due to rash or negligent driving of the tractor- trailor by its driver. It was specifically averred that one Sri D. Ganapathi was actually driving the said tractor-trailor and that the said Ganapathi did not have a driving license and hence, the 1st respondent owner, in collusion with the local police, has falsely implicated one Sri M.Chilkaiah, as if he had driven the tractor instead of Sri D. Ganapathi. It was specifically averred that the 1st respondent owner in the O.P., has bribed the local police by paying them a sum ranging between Rs.13,000/- to Rs.17,000/- for the said purpose and that a specific case in Crime No.56 of 1995 was registered against the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police and others for falsely registering the FIR in Crime No.54 of 1995. Thus, the parties have gone and participated in the trial of the O.P. On behalf of the claimants, 4th claimant, father of the deceased was examined as PW-1 and he also got marked five exhibits viz., Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the insurance company none has been examined. PW-1 is not an eyewitness to the incident. He deposed about the relationship of the individual claimants with the deceased, his monthly income and narrated as to how he learnt of the accident resulting in the death of Sri Krishnamurthy on 31-05- 1995. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the FIR registered by the Police Station Rebbena, in Crime No.54 of 1995 to vouch for the accident that occurred on 31-05-1995, resulting in the death of Sri Krishnamurthy, all due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the postmortem examination report of the deceased Krishnamurthy, wherein it has been clearly found that the deceased died all because of multiple injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ex.A-3 is the certified copy of the check-report filed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, indicating that there is no mechanical failure of the tractor-trailor for the accident to have been caused. Ex.A-4 is the copy of the charge sheet filed in Crime No.54 of 1995 against Sri D. Ganapathi. Ex.A-5 is the copy of the Judgment rendered by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad, in C.C.No.445 of 1995, acquitting the accused, who are the police personnel, against whom the appellant insurance company has specifically made allegations of corruption and falsification of record. The Tribunal has found, as a fact, that the tractor- trailor was driven by M. Chilakaiah and only because of the rash and negligent manner of driving of the said Chilakaiah, the accident had occasioned. Going by the minimum annual income of Rs.15,000/-, as specified in the Schedule appended to the Act, the Tribunal has arrived at the amount of compensation payable as Rs.1,70,000/- (wrongly specified as Rs.1,17,000/- ). However, since, the claimants have confined the claim to Rs.1,00,000/-, which is less than the quantum of eligible compensation receivable by them, the Tribunal has, therefore, awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st claimant was awarded Rs.50,000/-, while the 3rd and 4th claimants, parents of the deceased, were awarded the balance amount of Rs.50,000/-, to be shared equally by them. The 2nd claimant, who is, said to be, the dependant brother of the deceased, was rightly denied to be paid any amount of compensation. As noticed supra, it is this Award, which is challenged for its correctness and validity in the above Appeal. I have head Sri T. Mahender Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant insurance company and Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the respondent- claimants 1 to 4. Sri T. Mahender Rao has strenuously contended that there is no basis for the Tribunal to have arrived at a finding that the tractor-trailor in question was driven on the fateful day by Mr. Chilakaiah. It was further contended that the Tribunal has grossly erred in not taking into account and consideration the serious issue involving corrupt methods adopted by the local police and thus, falsely implicating Mr. Chilakaiah. The appellant insurance company has also taken out a miscellaneous petition in MACMAMP No.4584 of 2006, in the above Appeal, to receive; (1) certified copy of the judgment rendered in C.C.No.335 of 1995; (2) Xerox copy of the petition dated 11-09-1995 filed by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bellampalli, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad; and (3) the attested copy of the charge-sheet in C.C.No.445 of 1995, as additional evidence. It is contended that the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bellampalli, on 11-09-1995 filed a report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad, in Crime No.54 of 1995, setting out that one M.Chilakaiah, S/o Sri M.Balaiah, has been falsely implicated as accused in Crime No.54 of 1995, under Section 304-A IPC, by the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station. It was also stated in the report that the said Chilakaiah was arrested on 05-06-1995 and he was remanded to judicial custody instead of the actual accused Sri D. Ganapati. It was further stated that the actual accused Sri Ganapathi was arrested on 13-07-1995 and was later on released on bail. It is, therefore, prayed to discharge Sri M. Chilakaiah from the case. From this statement, the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant would contend that a responsible Sub- Divisional Police Officer, who has carried out the investigation into the episode, has now gone on record that the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station, has falsely implicated Sri M. Chilakaiah in Crime No.54 of 1995, with a view to bailout the owner of the tractor-trailor. It was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that the criminal court had, accordingly, discharged Sri M. Chilakaiah and prosecuted Sri D. Ganapathi. A copy of the judgment rendered in C.C.No.335 of 1995, is also, now sought to be brought on record. It is worthy to notice that the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad, who tried C.C.No.335 of 1995, against Sri D. Ganapathi, has, ultimately, acquitted him of the charge laid against. It was also appropriate to notice that no one has supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, PWs 1 to 3, who were said to be the eyewitnesses of the accident, have been examined. PWs 1 to 3 are, said to be, traveling by the same tractor-trailor. They deposed that the deceased, who was sitting on the door of the trailor fell off when the tractor ran into a ditch. PW-3, in fact, deposed that one Chilakaiah was driving the crime vehicle at the time of its accident. Therefore, the criminal court did not consider it appropriate to convict the accused D.Ganapathi, it did not consider him to be the one who drove the crime vehicle. Now, turning to the charge-sheet filed into Crime No.56 of 1995, under Sections 161 and 384 IPC, booked against the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station, and others, the judgment rendered therein in C.C.No.445 of 1995, has been marked as Ex.A-5 before the Tribunal. It is important to notice that the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Asifabad, acquitted the accused in C.C.No.445 of 1995. What emerges, therefore, is that, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Rebbena Police Station, and others, who have been prosecuted in C.C.No.445 of 1995, were acquitted, and so was D. Ganapathi, who is alleged by the appellant to have driven the tractor-trailor on the fateful day. In other words, the allegation leveled by the appellant insurance company that it is not Sri Chilakaiah, who was driving the tractor-trailor on the date when the accident occurred, but it is Sri D. Ganapathi, who actually drove the vehicle, did not gain acceptance. It will be relevant to notice that the Tribunal is entitled to adopt Summary Procedure in terms of Section 169 of the Act, while conducting an inquiry into the claims lodged under Section 166 of the said Act. It is the appellant insurance company, which took the plea that the tractor-trailor has been driven, on the fateful day, by Sri D. Ganapathi and the said Ganapathi did not have a driving license to drive the tractor-trailor. It is also specifically asserted that Sri M. Chilakaiah was falsely implicated and shown as the driver of the tractor-trailor. However, these are all pure questions of fact, which can be established by leading evidence only. In spite of taking a specific plea in its written statement in opposition of the claim, the insurance company has not bothered to lead any evidence to that effect. It is not merely enough to leave a suggestion to PW-1, during the course of cross examination. The burden is lying heavily on the insurance company, which has propounded the theory that it is not Sri Chilakaiah, but Sri Ganapathi, was driving the vehicle, to establish the said fact. There is no scope for any presumption or inference to be drawn from a mere pleading, in the absence of specific and relevant evidence in that regard. Until and unless the evidence is led in this regard, the corresponding onus or burden to establish that it is not Sri D. Ganapathi, but Chilakaiah, who drove the tractor-trailor on the said date, does not get shifted on to the claimants. On the contrary, from the copy of the Judgment placed by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant in C.C.No.335 of 1995, PW-3, who was, said to be, an eyewitness traveling by the same tractor-trailor, has specifically deposed that it is not Sri D. Ganapathi, but Sri M. Chilakaiah, who was driving the tractor-trailor vehicle. Therefore, to my mind, the appellant insurance company has failed to discharge the initial burden lying on it to show that it is Sri D. Ganapathi, who was driving the said tractor-trailor on the fateful day and that the said Ganapathi was not having valid driving license to do so. Since, the Judgment rendered in a related criminal case is an admissible piece of evidence, I consider it appropriate to allow the miscellaneous petition No.4584 of 2006, and mark the three documents, which accompanied the said petition, as exhibit evidence on behalf of he appellant insurance company. They be marked as Exs.B-1, B-2 and B-3, respectively. But however, it is a salutary principle of law that the Judgment rendered by a criminal court is not a conclusive proof of its contents. The appellant insurance company, therefore, ought to have led evidence and independent material should have been marshaled to demonstrate that it is Sri D. Ganapathi, who actually drove the vehicle in question and caused the accident, but not Chilakaiah. In my opinion it had failed to do so. For its sheer failure to lead evidence on a vital and crucial issue, which alone helps it to establish the defense available to it under Section 149 of the Act, it must be held that the view taken by the Tribunal in the face of the evidence brought before it as a reasonable view. It cannot be characterized as perverse or unsustainable view. Hence, the appeal fails. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, therefore, dismissed, but however, without costs. --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J mrk 30th December 2009