HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.2320 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award passed in O.P.1595 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 17.03.2003. The factual back ground for the appeal is that the appellant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal alleging that on 17.03.2000 at about 10.00 A.M. he was proceeding as a pillion rider on motor cycle bearing No.AP-09- AD-3571 driven by the 1st respondent and due to the rash and negligent driving by the 1st respondent in spite of the warnings of the claimant, the motor cycle slipped and fell while taking a turn at the curve resulting in fracture of left knee to the claimant apart from injuries on the head, nose, hand, fore-arm and elbows. The 1st respondent is the owner of the motor cycle with a valid driving licence and the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle under a subsisting insurance policy by that time. The claimant claimed that he was treated at Yasodha Super Speciality Hospital, Somajiguda and had to undergo surgery on 18.03.2000 with insertion of plates in the left knee and he was an inpatient for eight days. Later, he had to undergo surgery for removal of them and even after four months, he was unable to raise his left leg fully on the ground. The claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000/- per month and he is the sole bread-winner for the family and hence he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. While the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the motor cycle remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim denying all the allegations of the claimant and pointing out that in what manner the claimant travelled along with the 1st respondent was nowhere stated. The 1st respondent has to comply with the statutory obligations and the claimant is not a third party who can claim any compensation. Hence, the insurer desired the claim to be negatived. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the entitlement of the claimant to compensation, the quantum of the same and the persons liable for the same. The Tribunal examined PWs 1 to 3 and RWs.1 to 4 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16 and B.1 to B.9 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award referring to the evidence in detail and noting that there was a delay of 25 days in lodging the complaint which was claimed by the claimant to be due to his immobility and ill-health due to his hospitalization. The Tribunal further observed that R.W.4 did not explain as to why there was any confusion and R.W.4 stated in Exs.B.6 and B.7 about collision between two vehicles. Ex.A.8 was also referred to by the Tribunal in which R.W.4 was noted to have fallen when the two wheeler on which he and his colleague were travelling was taking a turn. The Tribunal felt that the evidence of R.W.4 about two separate accidents is unbelievable in view of Exs.B.6 and B.7 and the investigation by the police leading to the prosecution of the 1st respondent and conviction under Ex.A.2 judgment was also not relied upon by the Tribunal due to the various circumstances stated in the impugned judgment and concluding that the accident did not take place in the manner stated by the claimant and considering collision to have been probablised, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition with costs. The claimant is before this Court with this appeal contending that the evidence of R.W.4 did not support the case of the insurer and could not have been the basis for dismissal of the claim. The earlier statements of R.W.4 contradicting his evidence on oath could not have been referred and the conviction in the criminal case ought to have led to the grant of the claim. The evidence of the claimant ought to have been accepted and hence claimant desired that the impugned award be reversed. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent/insurer are heard and the 1st respondent did not enter appearance before this Court. While the accident in question allegedly occurred on 17.03.2000, the first information to the police by the appellant was given on 12.04.2000, which mentioned that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Ex.A.2 order in C.C.No.410 of 2000 shows that the 1st respondent was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code on admission. The conviction is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant to have become final and while it was stated in Ex.A.14 medico legal record of Yashoda Super Speciality Hospital that the appellant was claimed to have met with a road traffic accident near Rajbhavan when along with his colleague he was on a two wheeler, which slipped and fell. It is true that Ex.A.14 made no reference to the rashness or negligence on the part of the 1st respondent or the details as to who was driving the vehicle and who was the pillion rider. Ex.A.16 charge sheet filed by the police leading to the conviction to the 1st respondent on admission referred to the manner of accident in the same manner with the additional allegation that the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The charge sheet also specified that the Investigating Officer could not secure any independent witnesses as nobody was coming forward. The insurance policy Ex.B.1 is a comprehensive policy. R.W.4’s deposition before the Tribunal and Exs.B.6 and B.7 as specified earlier are absolutely contradictory and R.W.3 the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Panjagutta did not conduct any investigation in the case to throw any light on the manner of the accident or the subsequent prosecution. R.W.2 surveyor examined on behalf of the insurer claimed to have investigated into the accident and he claimed to have found that R.W.4 also was injured in the same accident but he admitted that he did not examine any of the witnesses shown in the charge sheet ie., either the claimant or the Investigating Officer except the Medical Officer. The version of R.W.4 relied on by R.W.2 was found to be a bundle of inconsistencies by the Tribunal and R.W.1 the Senior Assistant of the insurer spoke about violation of the terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 insurance policy by the insured. On the other hand, the claimant as P.W.1 reiterated his earlier assertions. Sri M.Rajamalla Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant desired under the circumstances to have an opportunity to examine the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet or the 1st respondent or Ramarao referred to by R.W.4 as driver of the other vehicle or any other direct and circumstantial witnesses to the accident as the failure of the claimant before the Tribunal was primarily due to disbelieving the manner of the accident as claimed by the claimant. The learned counsel also relied on Smt.Sukhinder Anand v Khaza Vazir Ali (Minor) and others[1] for the proposition that no further evidence is necessary to prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the person accused of such rash and negligent driving when he was convicted by the Criminal Court on a plea of guilty. The learned Judge relied on a decision of Madras High Court in Govind Singh v A.S.KALLASAM[2] for the proposition and the learned counsel seeks to rely on the conviction of the 1st respondent herein also admitting his rash and negligent driving leading to an offence under Section 338 of the IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal did not go into the question whether under Ex.B.1 policy the insurer can be fastened with any liability considering the pillion rider on the two wheeler to be a third party for purposes of payment of compensation and the learned counsel placed reliance on the circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority construing pillion riders to be entitled to compensation in such cases, which being later in point of time could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Learned counsel therefore desired that the matter may be remitted back to the Tribunal with an opportunity to the claimant to place the legal and factual position of the claim of the claimant. Though Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned Standing counsel for the insurer vehemently opposed the request for remand, it is seen from the material on record that there was lack of clarity in evidence about the scope for the claimant to make a claim for compensation in enforcement of Ex.B.1 insurance policy either on its terms and conditions or due to the effect of the relevant statutory provisions, as none of the witnesses or the Tribunal made any reference to those aspects. Similarly, the claimant did not examine any independent witness concerning the manner of the accident itself though the happening of the accident is not disputed and his default need not result in any technical denial of an opportunity to him to adduce any relevant evidence if he can. As the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act are intended to be beneficial in nature for the victims of the accidents, the request for remitting back the matter under the circumstances cannot be considered unreasonable, more so, when even the investigation on behalf of the insurer brought out the possibility of involvement of another two wheeler in the incident as opposed to the conclusions of the statutory investigating agency that led to the conviction of the 1st respondent on admission. The request for remand, therefore, has to be conceded. Therefore, the award dated 17.03.2003 in O.P.1595 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is set aside and the said O.P.No.1595 of 2000 is remitted back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal for a fresh determination and merits in accordance with law after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties to adduce such further oral and documentary evidence they may desire to produce before it. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 9th December, 2010. PNV [1] AIR 1994 A.P. 343 [2] AIR 1975 Madras, 65