* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH + M.A.C.M.A.No.1178 of 2007 %24-06-2010 # United India Insurance Company Limited. ..... Appellant VERSUS $ G.Mallaiah and others. .....Respondents < GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ! Counsel for Petitioner: V.Sambasiva Rao ^ Counsel for Respondents 2 to 6: C.Pratap Reddy ? Cases referred THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH M.A.C.M.A.No.1178 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the insurance company. Respondents 2 to 6 herein are the claimants. The 1st respondent is the owner of the Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP-23-T-4119 and 4120. The claimants filed O.P.No.513 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short “the Tribunal”), claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of one Patlolla Narsimha Reddy, who is husband of the 1st claimant, father of claimants 2 and 3 and the son of claimants 4 and 5. The Tribunal by its order, dated 22-03-2007, in O.P.No.513 of 2005 awarded compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. It is the case of the claimants that on 02-04-2005 at about 10.45 p.m. while the deceased and his brother were returning from Ordnance Factory to their village Pothireddipally on Hero Honda Splendour Motorcycle bearing No.AP-23-E-6530 on correct side, and when they reached in the limits of Kashipur Village, Indrakaran Mandal, Medak District, a Tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-4119 came from the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, and dashed against the said Motorcycle, as a result of which, both of them fell down and the motor cycle was completely damaged. The deceased was shifted to Ordnance Factory Hospital, where Potlolla Narsimha Reddy, succumbed to the injuries in the mid night while undergoing treatment. Police Indrakaran registered a case in Cr.No.14 of 2005 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC against the driver of the Tractor bearing AP-23-T-4119 and later filed charge-sheet before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. According to the claimants, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver. The said Tractor is validly insured with the United India Insurance Company covering the period of accident, and as such, the respondents are liable to pay compensation. It is stated that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of accident and he was working as Electrician and drawing monthly salary of Rs.7,885/- besides attending agriculture and in all, he used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and used to contribute the entire income to the family. A counter has been filed by the appellant-insurance company denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It is stated that the Tractor and Trailor in question was not all involved in the accident and it has sought leave to contest the matter under Section 170 of the M.V.Act apart from the grounds available under Section 149(2) of the M.V.Act. It is further stated that under Section 158 of the M.V.Act, it is the duty of the police concerned to forward relevant documents to the insurer concerned within 30 days from the date of the information, which is mandatory, but the police failed to do so. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- i) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle? ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, at what quantum and from whom? iii) To what relief? On behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents but copy of policy was marked as Ex.B-1. The 1st claimant was examined as PW.1 and stated that her husband Narasimha Reddy died in a motor accident on 02-04-2005. She learnt that on the date of accident, her husband was proceeding to Sangareddy from Ordnance Factory on Hero Honda Motor Cycle along with his brother and when they reached near Kashipur Village, a Tractor came in the opposite direction in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle, as a result of which, her husband fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Ordnance Factory Hospital, where he succumbed to the injuries. Police registered a case against the driver of the Tractor. She further stated that her husband used to work as Electrician in Ordinance Factory and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. She filed Ex.A-1-CC of FIR, Ex.A-2-CC of charge-sheet, Ex.A-3-CC of Inquest Panchanama, Ex.A-4-CC of scene of offence panchanama, Ex.A-5-CC of PME report, Ex.A-6-CC of MVI report and Exs.A-7 and A-8-pay slips of the deceased for the months of May and June, 2004. In the cross-examination, she admitted that she was not an eyewitness to the accident. Her brother-in-law, who was riding the motorcycle, lodged a complaint with the police. At the time of accident, her husband and her brother-in-law were proceeding on the motorcycle. She denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place with the Tractor, but with an unknown lorry. The suggestion that the police colluded with the owner of the Tractor and got filed a false case against the Tractor diver, was also denied. PW.2, who is working as Chargeman Grade-I Non-Technical in Ordnance Factory, Yeddumailaram, was examined for the purpose of establishing the salary drawn by the deceased. It is stated that as per Ex.A- 11, the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.7,885/- and after deductions of Rs.3,635/-, the net salary was Rs.4,250/-. PW.3, who is the younger brother of the deceased and complainant, stated that while he was proceeding from Ordnance Factory, Pothireddypally, on a Hero Honda Motorcycle, he was riding, and the deceased as pillion rider reached near Kashipur at about 10.45 p.m., a Tractor and Trailor was proceeding in their opposite direction and while they were proceeding on the left side of the road, the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and came to their right side and dashed the motor cycle. He was thrown from the motorcycle and fell down and sustained simple injuries and his brother sustained head injury. One D.Raghunath, who was proceeding towards Ordnance Factory observed them and immediately he telephoned for Ambulance and his brother was shifted to Ordnance Factory Hospital. While undergoing treatment, his brother succumbed to injuries in the Ordnance Factory Hospital. Police registered a case and examined him. The accident occurred due to the negligence of the tractor driver. He lodged a complaint with the police. He did not mention the tractor number in the complaint. After conducting investigation, police filed charge-sheet. The Tractor number is AP-23-T-4119 and the Trailor number is 4120. Police called him to the police station and he identified the crime vehicle. In the cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that to help the family of his brother, he is speaking false that the tractor was involved in the accident. He had lodged a complaint immediately after the accident. He sustained simple injuries in the accident. It is also admitted by him that he has stated in the complaint that some unknown lorry caused the accident. He did not write the complaint in his own hand, but on his narration only, the police drafted the complaint. According to him, he informed the police that the accident occurred with an unknown tractor. Police recorded his statement. He denied the suggestion that the accident did not take place with the tractor and that in collusion with the owner of the Tractor, the said Tractor was involved though the accident took place with an unknown lorry. The suggestion that the accident occurred due to his rash and negligent driving and not due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of unknown lorry or tractor was denied. I have perused the documents. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 02-04-2005 at 10.45 p.m. and PW.3 himself lodged a complaint at 8.00 a.m. on 03-04-2005 stating that after completing duty, he along with his brother was going on his motor cycle, and when they reached the limits of Kashipur village at 10-45 p.m., an unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction with a high speed and negligently and hit the motor cycle. He fell down and lost consciousness and his brother received severe head injury. At that time, one D.Raghunath, employee of Ordnance Factory came there and recognized them and informed the Ordnance Factory through cell phone and got an ambulance and shifted his bother to the Ordnance Factory hospital, wherein his brother died while undergoing treatment. A perusal of column No.7 of FIR clearly indicates that an unknown vehicle was involved in the accident. After registering FIR on 03-04-2005 at 8 a.m., post-mortem was conducted on the same day, which discloses that because of shock due to injury to brain, vital organ, the deceased died. Inquest was also conducted on 03-04-2005 itself, and the same was marked as Ex.A-3. In column No.9 of the inquest report it is stated that on 02-04-2005 at about 10.45 p.m. at Kashipur, while the deceased was travelling along with his brother in a Motor Cycle, an unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which, the deceased received blood injuries and while undergoing treatment, he died in the hospital. In the inquest report, PW.3 is the first witness. He never disclosed about involvement of the Tractor and Trailor in question and on the information received from the witnesses, who are the legal heirs of the deceased along with PW.3, the inquest panchanama was conducted on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.A-4 is the scene of offence panchanama, which was conducted on 03-04-2005 at 11 a.m. In the scene of offence panchanama also, it is stated that an unknown vehicle came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, the deceased died and the motor cycle, on which the deceased, along with PW.3 was travelling, was damaged. A perusal of the record makes it clear that after 18 days of the accident, Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP-23-T-4119 and 4120 was produced before the police on 20-04-2005 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 21-04-2005 at 4.00 p.m. and stated that there was no damage to the Tractor and Trailor bearing Nos.AP-23-T-4119 and 4120. He gave opinion that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect in the Tractor and Trailor. Contrary to the said reports i.e., Ex.A-1-FIR, Ex.A-3-Inquest panchanama, Ex.A-4-Scene of offence panchanama and Ex.A-5-post-mortem report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran, filed a charge-sheet on 23-04- 2005, which was later numbered as C.C.No.460 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, stating that a fatal accident occurred on 2-4-2005 on the limits of Kashipur village due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. It is stated that on 03-04- 2005, PW.3 lodged a complaint stating that on 02-04-2005 at 10-45 p.m. PW.3 and the deceased were going on Hero Splendour bearing No.AP- 23-E-6530 and when they reached the limits of Kashipur village, the driver of the Tractor while coming in the opposite direction drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle of the complainant, as a result of which, both of them fell down and the complainant became unconscious and his elder brother sustained serious injuries over head. The gist of the complaint given by PW.3 does not show the involvement of the said Tractor. In the complaint, the complainant never stated about involvement of the vehicle in question or about rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver. The involvement of Tractor is not indicated not only in the complaint but also in the inquest report and scene of offence panchanama. Contrary to the contents of FIR, the Investigating Officer narrated distract version in the charge-sheet. A further reading of the charge-sheet indicates that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer has not even taken into consideration the inquest report, post-mortem report and the scene of offence panchanama, wherein it was stated that some unknown vehicle, said to have been coming from the opposite direction of the motor cycle, dashed against the motor cycle. It is stated that one Mohd. Habeeb Khan, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran, initially investigated the case and thereafter, one Mr.Abdul Shareef, Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran, investigated and filed charge- sheet. He stated that during the course of further investigation, one Mr.Bandar Mallaiah, owner of the Tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-4119 came with the said Tractor and deposed that his Tractor driver one E.Papaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, R/o.Mallepally village, dashed against the complainant and his brother Narasimha Reddy, who were coming from Ordnance Factory, within the limits of Kashipur, and he did not inform him about the said accident. But, on coming to know about the said accident, he himself came along with the Tractor and narrated the above facts to the police. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer, Mr.Abdul Shareef, Sub-Inspector of Police secured the presence of LWs.6 and 13 and in their presence seized the Tractor under a cover of panchanama and recorded their statement and panchanama of scene of offence was also conducted and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred while the complainant along with his brother was going on bike from Ordnance Factory towards Kashipur at about 10.45 p.m. in the limits of Kashipur, as the accused-driver drove the Tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the complainant, as a result of which, the complainant and his brother, who was pillion rider, sustained injuries and his brother died while undergoing treatment. Thus, the charge-sheet was filed against the accused, who is not at all named in the charge-sheet, stating that the accused is absconding. When the entire charge-sheet was filed, the number of the Tractor was handwritten as against column No.5 of the charge- sheet. Thus, I am of the opinion that the aforesaid evidence on record establishes beyond all reasonable doubt that the Investigating Officer i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran, filed charge-sheet in collusion with the driver of the Tractor and Trailor and the complainant with a view to claim compensation from the insurance company, as the said Tractor was covered by the insurance policy insured with the appellant. Even in the claim petition, the Trailor number was not given and the claim petition was filed on 30-07- 2005. It is stated that one D.Raghunath, S/o.Muthaiah, recognized PW.3 and the deceased and got the Ambulance and shifted the deceased to Ordnance Factory Hospital. The said Raghunath was also not immediately examined. Nobody indicated about the involvement of the said Tractor earlier in the complaint. The complaint was given immediately after the accident and the inquest panchanama, scene of offence panchanama and the post-mortem report were conducted immediately on the date of complaint, but no where involvement of Tractor in question was stated by any of the witnesses including PW.3, who is an eye witness to the accident. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Tractor and Trailor was planted as if it was involved in the said accident in collusion with the police. Further, I am also of the opinion that the charge-sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police concerned of Indrakaran Police Station, contrary to the records, in collusion with the owner of the said Tractor with an intention to illegally help the claimants for obtaining compensation. Therefore, an appropriate disciplinary action requires to be initiated against the Sub-Inspector of Police concerned of Indrakaran Police Station, who filed the charge-sheet in C.C.No.460 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I have no hesitation to hold that the said Tractor was not involved in the accident and the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, who is said to have voluntarily produced by the owner of the Tractor before the police 20 days after the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal did not appreciate the evidence on record properly and erroneously came to the conclusion that the Tractor and Trailor was involved in the said accident. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Mark a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Medak at Sangareddy for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against the persons concerned and file a report before this court. Post the matter on 24-09-2010 for reporting compliance by the Superintendent of Police. ___________ 24-06-2010 Note: 1.L.R. copy to be marked. 2. Issue C.C. by 09-07-2010. (B/o) Prv