JUDGMENT
V. Jagannathan, J.
Page 0549
1. This case furnishes yet another example of fraud being played in order to claim compensation by hook or crook. A case of murder is sought to be converted into one of a road accident and compensation was sought. MACT allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents – claimants. Aggrieved by the award of the MACT, the Insurance Company is therefore in appeal.
2. The facts of the case according to the respondents-claimants briefly stated are to the effect that on 30.6.1995 deceased Srirama Reddy was travelling in a motor vehicle as a pillion rider and it was driven by one Adinaraya Reddy and when the vehicle came near a temple, a tractor which was coming from Kalantharayana Gudde side dashed to the motor cycle and following the said accident, both the rider as well as the pillion rider of the motor cycle sustained injuries and the latter Srirama Reddy died. Qaim petition was filed by the wife and children of the deceased and on behalf of the claimants PW-1 Gangadevamma, wife of deceased Srirama Reddy, PW-2 Ramakrishna, an eye witness to the accident and PW-3 – Adinarayana Reddy who was the rider of the motor cycle were examined and number of documents as per Ex. P.1 to P.16 were also marked. On behalf of the respondent, Insurance Company, R.W.1 to R.W.-3 were examined and documents R-1 to 3 were marked. The learned Presiding Officer of the MACT after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that it was a case of accident and not a case of Srirama Reddy having been murdered and therefore based on the material placed, the MACT finally allowed the claim petition and put the liability on the Insurance Company to satisfy Page 0550 the award amount of Rs. 2,37,000/-. The Insurance Company aggrieved by the said award of the Tribunal has come up in appeal.
3. Heard the submissions made by the learned Counsel Sri B.C. Seemarama Rao for the Insurance Company and learned Counsel Sri Mohankumar K.Y. for the respondents claimants and I have carefully perused the entire material on record.
4. Learned Counsel Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao submitted that a close examination of the evidence on record would go to indicate that a case of murder is being sought to be converted into one of accident and the very first complaint lodged by the wife of the deceased was to the effect that the deceased was done to death because of political rivalry and subsequently a case of accident has been created so as to enable the respondents-claimants to claim compensation from the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. In order to drive home his point, the learned Counsel referred to the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, submitted that even according to the evidence of these witnesses, the tractor cum trailer only dashed to the bumper of the motor cycle and the deceased as well as the rider of the motor cycle fell down. If this version of the evidence of the claimants has to be accepted, then the number of injuries and the nature of injuries found on the deceased as revealed by the post mortem report, Ex. P3 and the evidence of RW-3 would not permit any view being taken other than one of the deceased having been done to death. Therefore, the MACT was in error in not appreciating the entire material on record in proper perspective. But on the other hand, it has gone on to accept the charge sheet filed against the driver of the tractor cum trailer and proceeded to record the finding of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the tractor. As such, the Trial Court did not carefully examine the entire evidence and more particularly that of RW-1 to R.W3 and the post mortem report as well as the FIR lodged by the wife of the deceased. Hence, it is a clear case of fraud being played on the Court and a case of murder has been projected as if it was a case of accident. Therefore,, the award of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside as being not sustainable in law.
5. On the other hand learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the insured was placed ex-parte before the MACT and the evidence of PW-1 to 3 have not been seriously contested in the cross examination. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal does not call for interference. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel placed reliance on the rulings of this Court reported in Harkhubai and Ors. v. Jiyaram and Ors. 2003(4) KCCR 2579 and in Mutteppa Nagappa Karegar v. G.B. Attar and Ors. .
6. Having thus kept in view the submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties and after taking note of the rulings cited and on a consideration of the entire material on record, the only point for consideration is whether a case of murder has been sought to be converted into a case of road accident.
Page 0551
7. The answer to the above question lies in a close examination of the evidence on record. PW-1 Gangadevamma being the wife of the deceased has no doubt deposed in her examination-in-chief that her husband sustained injuries when the motor cycle in which he was travelling was hit by a tractor near Kalantharayana Temple. She has stated in her evidence that her husband was riding the motor cycle and Adinarayana Reddy was the pillion rider but she contradicts herself by stating further that it was Adinarayana Reddy who was riding the motor cycle and that her husband was the pillion rider, PW-2 Ramakrishna, an eye witness has stated that he was going in the tractor belonging to one Balaraj and around 8.45 pm., the tractor on being driven in a rash and negligent manner, the trailer which was attached to the tractor dashed to the handle of the motor cycle and there afterwards, the tractor fled away. PW-3, Adinarayana Reddy who was the rider of the motor cycle on his part has deposed to the effect that when he was going along with the deceased Srirama Reddy in the motor cycle, the tractor bearing No. AAN 1871 came from the opposite side and dashed the motor cycle and as a result of which PW-3 sustained injuries on his body. What is missing from the examination-in-chief of PW-3 Adinarayana Reddy is that he has not whispered even a word about what happened to Srirama Reddy and whether Srirama Reddy was injured in the accident or not.
8. Though the above evidence of PW-1 to 3 gives an impression that Srirama Reddy was injured because of the accident and because of the tractor cum trailer hitting the motor cycle, yet the picture that one gets from looking at the cross examination of these witnesses is altogether a different one.
9. PW.1 Gangadevamma in her cross-examination has stated that she gave a complaint to the police to the effect that her husband was murdered and following the said incident, she informed the police accordingly and she further admits that during the inquest panchanama she did make a statement before the police that her husband was murdered. Even the other witnesses during their cross-examination also depose to the same effect. It is further admitted by PW.1 in the cross examination that she informed the officers of the Insurance Company that her husband was murdered. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 on the whole leads to Inference that the first information that was given by her to the police was one of her husband having been murdered and the FIR, Ex.P.1 confirms this fact PW-2 only speaks of a case of hit and run and only the trailer coming in touch with the handle of the motor cycle. Therefore, it becomes clear that the number of injuries found on the deceased and the nature of injuries could not have been caused if the deceased had just fallen down because of the motor cycle handle coming in contact of the trailer. Further, PW-2 in his cross-examination says that one week after the incident, there were talks in the village that Srirama Reddy had died on account of being murdered. This witness says that he never informed about the incident to the police.
Page 0552
10. PW-3, Adinarayana Reddy in his cross examination has stated that the police never enquired with him at any point of time. He also says that the tractor bumper dashed to the motor cycle and immediately he and Srirama Reddy fell down. This evidence of PW-3 gives rise to doubt the veracity of the testimony more so having regard to the injuries found on the deceased which according to the medical evidence on record could not have been caused in a road accident.
11. I now come to the medical evidence part of the case. Ex. P-3 is the postmortem report and it mentions about the injuries sustained by the deceased and as per the opinion given, the cause of death is due to crash and hemorrhage and a result of crash of left humerus and left femur. These documents read in the light of the evidence of PW-1 to 3 do not lead to the inference that the injuries noticed in the postmortem report could have been caused just by a fall from the vehicle. But on the other hand, possibility of the deceased having been done to death by giving him number of blows with a heavy object cannot be ruled out. On behalf of the Insurance Company, three witnesses were examined and out of them RW-1 M. Narayana, a Senior Assistant of the Insurance Company has deposed to the effect that the FIR lodged A by the wife of the deceased, was to the effect that the deceased was done to death. The Insurance Company thought of getting the matter verified and in the process, the Company engaged the services of a private investigator and one C.G. Krishna of M/s. Pryman Detective Agency was commissioned for the said purpose and the report given by the said private agency is to the effect that the deceased was done to death and it was not a case of road accident. The evidence of RW-1 finds support from RW-2, the private investigator. In the cross examination he has stated that a case of political murder has been turned into road accident and the injuries found on the deceased as per the postmortem report do not tally with the cause of accident due to hit by a tractor cum trailer. RW-3 Dr. K.W.D. Ravichandra, Retd, Professor and HOD of Forensic Medicine, Victoria Hospital in his evidence has stated that the medical analysis conducted by him leads to the conclusion that the description of the injuries are specification of homicidal assault rather than that of a road accident and the said conclusion is based on several factors which is mentioned in paragraph 10 of his evidence as under:
10. On perusal of the alleged RTA I opine the following fact:
a) The deceased was a Pillion Rider of Motor Cycle and the alleged Tractor was coming in opposite direction both of them moving on their left side.
b) Any frontal collusion the rider would sustain more severe injuries than the Pillion Rider, unless the Pillion Rider was thrown out of the vehicle and hitting any stationery hard object or being run over by a moving vehicle.
c) In this case the Pillion Rider sustained fatal injuries and not being thrown out or not being run over by a moving vehicle.
d) If the protruding and bent head of the Pillion Rider had hit the Trailer of the on corning Tractor/traitor, the Pillion Rider would Page 0553 have sustained injuries on right side of Head and face. But in this case both the Rider and Pillion Riders of Motor Cycle have sustained injuries to the left side head and face.
e) If left side injury were caused by thrown out of the vehicle over the road, there would have been severe injuries than the injuries which are caused on the right side of the faces, by primary impact by the Trailer hit.
f) Strangely in this case, there are no right side injuries to the Head and Faces of the Riders of the Motor Cycle, which would never occur, in such a scene of traffic accident as alleged in this case.
g) In an RTA there would be multiple and varieties of the injuries like abrasions and avulsed lacerations because of pull and push by the impacting vehicle apart from the serious injuries of impact But in this case there are no such injuries.
h) The description of injuries in the P.M. report over the Head and Face are only limited to the Left side and severe with Fracture of the underlying bones with laceration of Brain Tissue and protruding of Brain are very specific of multiple and severe blows on these parts by blunt object like iron rods.
i) Fracture of Left Humerus and Right Femur as mentioned in the P.M. Report as Injury No. 3 and 4 which are also as a result of assault over these parts of the body by iron rods and not by vehicular accident, in which case these bones would have been broken into multiple pieces.
12. Thus a careful examination of the evidence given by the parties before the MACT raises a doubt in ones mind, namely; that a case of murder has been sought to be converted to one of road accident. Merely because a charge sheet has been submitted by the police, evidence of the driver of the tractor cum trailer, itself will not be sufficient to discard the evidence placed by the respondent, Insurance Company and the admissions made by PW-1 to 3 in their evidence. Apart from this, one other aspect of the matter which will have to be referred to is that the Tribunal has also observed that a caw of murder is being sought to be converted into one of road accident This conclusion is based on the number of injuries and the nature of injuries caused to the deceased in the face of cause of accident as given by the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
13. I therefore have no hesitation in agreeing with the contention put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant, that a clear case of murder is being converted into one of road accident only to enable the claimants to get compensation from the Tribunal. The further inference is that it is a clear case of fraud being played on the Court.
Unfortunately, the police have also not examined the case in proper perspective. In the light of the evidence adduced by the respondents and in the face of the opinion given by the Doctor in the postmortem report and the statements made by the witnesses during the inquest, it was the duty Page 0554 of the police and more so the investigating officer to have probed deeply into the entire matter, but it has not been done and therefore I am constrained to observe that the matter requires further examination by the police and hence suitable directions will be given in this regard.
14. In the light of the analysis of the evidence on record, in my view, the facts and circumstances before us are entirely different from the one which were the subject mater of the two decisions referred to by learned Counsel for the respondents -claimants and as such the said rulings have no application to the case on hand.
15. In the result the finding of the Tribunal so far as rash and negligent driving of the tractor cum trailer in question by the driver concerned, is liable to be set aside and consequently the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the compensation to the respondents-claimants, since the injuries and consequent death were not on account of any road accident Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed. The impugned award of the MACT is set aside. The amount in deposit made by the appellants may be refunded to them.
A (sic) copy of this judgment be forwarded forthwith to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore and also to the Secretary to Home Department, the Home Minister, so that the authorities concerned will bestow their attention to what has been said in the instant judgment and take necessary action in this regard so as to bring out the truth of the matter. I hope and trust that a case of murder will not be allowed to go unnoticed by the authorities concerned, since it is a heinous crime. It is needless to say that it is a crime against the society at large and the matter therefore requires serious investigation.