Apsrtc Vs. K. Kumar Reddy - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
motor vehicles - rash and negligent driving - section 168 of motor vehicles act, 1988 - appellant challenged order directing him to pay compensation to respondent for accident due to rash and negligent driving of appellant's driver - court below awarded compensation just because appellant could not give any evidence in support of their case - burden of proof lies on respondent claiming compensation - court not justified in awarding compensation without applying its mind - case remitted back to court below for fresh disposal. - all india services act, 1951. sections 32(c) (as amended by section 3 of amendment act, 2005] & 10 & general clauses act, 1897, section 6: [g.s. singhvi, cj, dr.g. yethirajulu, ramesh ranganathan, g.bhavani prasad, c.v. nagarjuna reddy, jj] exemption of building from applicability of provisions of act held, (per majority) section 32(c) of the act provides that the provisions of the act shall not apply to any building the rent of which as on the date of the commencement of the a.p. buildings ( lease, rent and eviction) control (amendment) act 2005 exceeds rs.3,500/- per month in the areas covered by the municipal corporations in the state and rs.2,000/- per month in other areas. there is nothing in the provisions of the amendment act which either expressly or by necessary implication suggests that the act is given retrospective operation. section 32 (c) of the amendment act is prospective in operation and this provision does not affect the proceedings pending as on the date of its coming into force before the civil courts or appellate, revisional or executing courts. these cases are required to be decided without reference to and applications of the provisions of the amendment act, 2005. undisputedly when the landlords filed their suits, the rent prescribed in the notification in force for the purpose of exempting buildings was rs.1,000/- and above. the landlords were therefore entitled under common law to approach the civil courts for seeking eviction of their tenants by availing the remedy of civil suits. in the absence of the amended provision being given retrospective operation, the crystallised rights of landlords on dates of their filing the civil suits cannot be taken away by reading amended provisions of section 32 (c) into section 10(1) of the act. as the amendment act is not retrospective in operation pending proceedings are saved by the aforementioned provisions. therefore, apart from the vested rights acquired by the landlords in these cases, by application of section 6(c) and (e) of the general clauses act, 1897 and section 8(d) and (f) of the a.p. general clauses act, 1891, the landlords have got acquired or accrued right to continue the proceedings despite the coming into force of the amended provision. - 1 as well as pw. the tribunal is directed to consider afresh the entire evidence regarding the rash and negligent driving of rtc driver as well as the quantum of compensation to which the respondent-claimant is liable.dubagunta subrahmanyam, j.1. the apsrtc filed this appeal against the award dated 5-11-1999 passed in m.v. o.p. no. 377 of 1997 on the file of the motor accidents claims tribunal-cum-i additional district judge, kurnool.2. there was a collision between two vehicles, namely a car bearing registration no. ap-21c-4334 belonging to the claimant- respondent and apsrtc bus bearing no. ap-9z-2293, on 8-2-1997 on kurnool-hyderabad high way. the car sustained damages as a result of the accident. the respondent-claimant filed the claim application seeking compensation of rs. 2,35,100-00 on the ground that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of rtc bus driver. apsrtc disputed its liability. it also disputed that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver. the claims tribunal framed appropriate issues. the claimant examined three witnesses as pws.1 to 3 in support of his case and marked exs.a.1 to a.27. the tribunal granted total compensation of rs. 1,40,000-00 with proportionate costs and interest payable by the appellant to the respondent-claimant. the said award dated 5-11-1999, is questioned by apsrtc in the present appeal.3. it is an unfortunate case. the learned i additional district judge without any discussion, whatsoever, recorded a finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of rtc bus driver. his entire discussion is in para 8 of his judgment. para 8 of his judgment reads as follows:'no evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent. ex.a.1 is copy of fir. ex.a.3 is copy of charge-sheet. they show that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the rtc bus. exs.a4 to a12 are photos showing the damaged car. according to pw.3 he valued the accident car at rs. 1,40,000/- in its pre-accident condition. therefore, the value of the car shall not be more than rs. 1,40,000/-and so compensation for damages also shall not be more than rs. 1,40,000/-. it is not the case of the petitioner that he lost income from the accident-car due to the accident. it is not the case of the petitioner that he was getting income by giving the car for hire. i therefore hold that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the apsrtc bus and the respondent is liable to pay compensation for damage done to the car.' the above discussion shows that accordingto the learned district judge, fir copyex.a.1, charge-sheet ex.a.3 proved that theaccident occurred due to the negligence ofthe driver of the rtc bus. he did not evennarrate the contents of exs.a.1 and a.3 inthe course of his judgment. the claimantadduced oral evidence regarding the mannerin which the accident took place. theclaimant-pw.1 as well as pw.2 weretravelling in the vehicle at the time ofaccident. the learned i additional districtjudge ought to have discussed their evidenceand if he had found that their evidenceis trustworthy and acceptable, he shouldhave recorded the finding that the accidenttook place due to the negligence on thepart of rtc driver. as already pointedout, he did not discuss any evidence to givethis finding. a senior district judge is not supposed to pass such claim orders, without any discussion, fastening the liability on the respondents in the claim applications. he is expected to apply his mind, discuss the evidence on record and then record findings of fact. the learned advocate for the respondent contends that as rtc authorities did not adduce any evidence, an adverse inference can he drawn against them. it is not a question of drawing an adverse inference. the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle belonging to the rtc. one of the circumstances, that can be taken into consideration is, the absence of any evidence on behalf of the rtc. just because rtc authorities did not adduce any evidence, the court without any discussion is not supposed to jump to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the rtc driver. it therefore, becomes necessary for this court to set aside the award passed by the learned tribunal and remit the entire o.p. to the tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. the tribunal is directed to consider afresh the entire evidence regarding the rash and negligent driving of rtc driver as well as the quantum of compensation to which the respondent-claimant is liable. the casual manner in which the learned i additional district judge passed the impugned order is shocking and deprecated.4. in the result, the appeal is allowed. the award dated 5-11-1999 is set aside. mvop no. 377 of 1997 is remitted to the 1 additional district judge, kurnool for fresh disposal in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by this court, in the course of this order. the tribunal is directed to dispose of the o.p. within a period of three months from the date of receipt of records from this court. no costs.