THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.3850 of 2003 Between Dora Chittamma and others v. L.Kanaka Raju and others THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.3850 of 2003 Oral Order : 1) This appeal has been preferred by the claimants challenging the award dated 26-8- 2003 passed in MATOP No.299 of 1998 by the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge ) at Khammam whereby and whereunder the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the legal heirs of the deceased. 2) According to the claimants, on 13-6-1997 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Lakhsminarayana after completion of his business was returning back to his house from Julurpahad center, meanwhile a scooterist i.e. respondent no.1 came on a scooter bearing No.AP 36/D 5262 proceeding from Thallada to Kothagudem side in a rash and negligent manner at high sped, lost his control and dashed against the deceased due to that deceased’s right leg was fractured, his both elbows were also sustained bleeding injuries, immediately he was shifted to Community Hospital, Julurpahad. A case was registered in Crime NO.40/97 for the offence under section 304-A IPC against the respondent no.1. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased. 3) Before the Tribunal the respondent no.1 filed counter denying the rash and negligent manner at the time of accident and stated that the claim is highly excessive. The respondent no.2 owner of the scooter remained ex-parte. Respondent no.3-insurance company filed counter denying the manner of accident and also the rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent no.1. 4) On the basis of the above contentions, the following issues were framed for trial. 1) Whether the deceased Dara Lakshminarayana died owing to rash and negligent driving of the scooter No.AP36/D 5262 by its driver/respondent no.1 2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents 3) To what relief ? Issue No.1) was recaste as follows by the trial Court as to “Whether the deceased sustained injuries on 13-6-1997 in motor accident and subsequently succumbed to those injuries on 18-7-1997 and whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No. AP 36/D5262 by its driver/respondent no.1? ” 5) To substantiate the claim the first claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and also examined another eye witness as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3. On behalf of the respondent no.3 the Senior Assistant was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 Insurance Policy Copy. 6) The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence on record, while dismissing the claim petition, held that the claimants failed to prove that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and succumbed to those injuries; and also failed to prove that the driver of the scooter has caused the accident. Hence, this appeal by the claimants. 7) According to P.W.1 wife of the deceased that while her husband was returning home in the year 1996 at about 8.00 p.m. he was hit by a scooterist and he sustained grievous injuries and that after 34 days of the accident her husband succumbed to the injuries. Admittedly P.W.1 is not the eye witness to the incident. It was deposed by P.W.1 that her husband died 34 days after admission into a private hospital run by Dr.T. Vijender Rao, Kothagudem. According to P.W.2 who is stated to be an eye witness to the incident the accident occurred on 13-6-1997 at about 8.00 p.m. but the matter was reported to the police on 18-7-1997 i.e. after the death of the deceased. According to the defacto complainant the scooterist promised to bare the medical expenses of the deceased and got admitted the deceased in a private nursing home of Dr.T.Vijender Rao, later the scooterist i.e. respondent no.1 herein did not contact the deceased and his family, when the deceased was undergoing treatment in the hospital of Dr.T. Vijender Rao at Kothagudem. Even according to the claimants, the deceased died about 34 days after the accident, but neither any member of the family of the deceased nor the so called eye witnesses cited in Ex.A.2 i.e. certified copy of the charge sheet, made an effort to inform the police and got register a criminal case against the scooterist. Even the Dr.T.Vijender Rao did not inform the admission of the deceased with accidental injuries in his hospital to the police. As per Ex.A.2 there are 5 eye witnesses to the occurrence of the accident, but no witness was examined or informed the same to the police. The offence committed by the so called scooterist is a cognizable offence, it is the duty of the person who come to know about the commission of the offence to inform the same to the police but no effort has been made by any one of them to in form the accident to the Police till the death of the deceased. It is only after the death of the deceased the police was informed about the accident and case was registered. According to Ex.A.3 certified copy of the post mortem examination report the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest due to post traumatic grievous injury to his right hip joint. The doctor who conducted the post mortem examination was also not examined to prove that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the accident. That apart the owner of the scooter also did not inform about the accident as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy marked as Ex.B.1. Considering those circumstances, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the occurrence of the accident is doubtful and dismissed the claim petition. 8) In the circumstances, I do not see any ground to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. 9) The CMA is therefore meritless and is dismissed. No costs. GM, J Dt 20-1-2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.3850 of 2003 20-1-2011