G. Saramma and Others vs Md. Jabbar Sharif and Another

Neelam Sanjiva Reddy, J.—Claimants in O.P. No. 403 of 1989 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Guntur, preferred this appeal.

Anjaiah and K. Krishnaiah were returning as fare paid passengers from Sattenapalli after selling chilly seeds on 26.9.1989 by lorry No. AAT 4666 which was coming with a load of napa slabs from Macherla to Guntur. There were also others travelling by the same lorry. The lorry met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting in the death of Anjaiah and K. Krishnaiah on the spot. Wife, child and parents of the deceased preferred the above O.P. claiming a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident. The claim was resisted by the respondents. The Tribunal, after due inquiry, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 55,000 against the owner of the vehicle and dismissed the petition as against the insurer finding that the deceased travelled in the vehicle as fare paid passenger only. Aggrieved by the said finding and consequent order dismissing the claim as against the insurer, claimants preferred this appeal.

Mr. D.V. Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Tribunal erred in holding that the evidence to the effect that the deceased accompanied his goods in the lorry cannot be accepted in the absence of plea made in the claim petition and he further submits that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is sufficient to establish that the deceased accompanied his goods of four bags of fertilizers in the lorry at the time of the accident and consequently the insurer is bound to indemnify the liability of the owner to pay the compensation to the claimants.

The claimants did not plead in their petition that the deceased accomnanied his goods in the lorry, but they pleaded that he travelled in the lorry as passenger only. However, during the trial, they filed a petition to amend the pleading to the effect that the deceased accompanied his goods of fertilizers in the lorry. But, it was dismissed and the matter rested there.

A claim petition is not a plaint as contemplated under Civil Procedure Code. Form CID is the form of application for compensation prescribed under Rule 455 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. All the claims under Motor Vehicles Act for compensation in the case of fault liability have to be made in the said Form CID. The claimants are supposed to furnish the particulars required in the format to the best of their knowledge. Column 26 of the Form CID relates to any other information that may be necessary or helpful in the disposal of the claim. If any necessary and helpful information in the disposal of the claim is not furnished in this column, it might be that the claimants are not aware of such information by the date of the claim petition. If they are furnishing such information subsequently during the inquiry in the evidence, veracity of that evidence has to be appreciated in the light of the explanation for non-furnishing of information earlier in column 26 of the Form CID. The claim petition apparently is not a plaint and, therefore, strict rules of pleadings is CPC cannot be invoked in considering the claim petition. This view finds support in the following Division Bench decisions of Bombay and Karna taka High Courts. Bessarlal Laxmi Chand Chirawala v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Greater Bombay 1970 ACJ 334 (Bombay) and Basappa v. K.H. Sreenivasa Reddy 1982 ACJ 585 (Karnataka). For the above reasons the evidence adduced for the claimants that the deceased travelled with his goods in the lorry cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there was no specific plea to that effect. However, absence of this information in column 26 of Form CID is a factor to be considered while appreciating the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the deceased accompanied his goods in the lorry.

PW 1 is wife of the deceased. She had no personal knowledge whether her husband travelled with or without goods in the lorry at the time of the accident. PW 2, for the first time, spoke in his evidence that the deceased accompanied his goods of fertilizers in the lorry at the time of the accident. Exh. A-l is a certified copy of the F.I.R. in respect of this accident given by one Korata Narasimha Rao, cited as PW 1 in the criminal case filed against the driver. In Exh. A-l, there is no mention of the deceased carrying any fertilizers along with him in the lorry at the time of the accident though there is mention of some others accompanying their goods. Exh. A-3 is a certified copy of the charge-sheet filed in the court of the VIII Addl. Munsif Magistrate, Guntur, against the driver for causing this accident. It is not the prosecution case that the deceased travelled with goods in the lorry and there is no whisper of any witness speaking such fact during investigation of the criminal case. Evidently, the case of the claimants was improved at the stage of evidence to fasten the liability on the insurer. Therefore, the evidence of PW 2 that the deceased accompanied his goods of fertilizers at the time of the accident is not true and he simply obliged the claimants obviously to help them to get compensation from the insurance company. For the: above reasons, I am of the view that the deceased travelled only as fare paid passenger and not accompanied any of his goods in the lorry at the time of the accident. Under the above circumstances, the terms of Exh. B-l, insurance policy, do not contemplate payment of compensation by the insurer in case of fault liability.

Mr. M. Sreenivasa Rao, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 2, insurance company, fairly conceded that the insurance company is bound to indemnify, in terms of Exh. B-l, the liability of the owner on the principle of no fault u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Learned counsel for the insurance company made this fair submission in view of a Division Bench decision of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Guddi Venkanalla Akkamma and Others, . Therefore, the respondent No. 2, insurance company, is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000 under no fault liability with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs and the respondent No. 2, insurance company, shall jointly and severally pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. The compensation amount awarded shall be paid/ deposited as per the guidelines detailed by the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Trivandrum Vs. Mrs. Susamma Thomas and others, .