MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 26. 6. 1999 made in O. P. No. 533 of 1994 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District judge, Nizamabad whereby the claim of the appellants herein seeking a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 for the death of S. Jitendarnath, husband of the appellant No. 1, father of appellant Nos. 2 to 4 in an accident which took place on 31. 12. 1993, is dismissed.

( 2 ) THE brief averments in O. P. No. 533 of 1994 which was filed by the appellants-claimants on the file of the Tribunal below are traced as under: appellant No. 1 is the wife of late S. Jitendarnath and appellant Nos. 2 to 4 are their children. Late S. Jitendarnath was aged 40 years and was earning Rs. 6,150 as agricultural Officer and he was contributing his entire earnings for the maintenance of his family. On 31. 12. 1993, at about 9 p. m. the deceased Jitendarnath was going on his motor cycle from Varni side towards nizamabad. On the way, a Maruti car bearing No. AP 25-4545 owned by the respondent No. 2, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed against the deceased Jitendarnath near venkateshwara Temple on the road from varni to Nizamabad in the outskirts of morsa village, as a result of which the deceased Jitendarnath sustained grievous injuries on his head and all over his body. He was taken to the Government Hospital, nizamabad and on the next day he was referred to Nizams Institute of Medical sciences, Hyderabad for better treatment. However, he succumbed to the injuries on 10. 1. 1994. On the complaint given by S. Vijayendernath, the S. H. O. of Panjagutta police Station, Hyderabad registered the case in Crime No. 15 of 1994 under section 174, Criminal Procedure Code on 10. 1. 94 at 1 p. m. and issued Exh. A-3 (F. I. R. ).

( 3 ) APPELLANTS-CLAIMANTS averred that they were all dependent on the earnings of late S. Jitendarnath and on account of his untimely death, they were deprived of their livelihood. The appellants, therefore, claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 against the respondents under various heads with costs and interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.

( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 filed a detailed counter wherein it is contended that the deceased himself dashed his vehicle to one wild boar (forest pig) near Venkateshwara gutta with the result, the wild boar died on the spot and the deceased sustained fracture injuries and till the death of the deceased, there was no whisper about the deceased meeting with any accident involving any car or any vehicle other than his own motor cycle. It is further alleged in the counter that there is a conspiracy between the claimants and the police and launching of criminal proceedings is collusive. It is complained in the counter that the respondent No. 2 is in the habit of making claims against the insurance company for the past five years and he connived and colluded with the claimants and got foisted a false claim against the insurance company. The respondent No. 1, insurance company, denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the petition.

( 5 ) THE respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the offending car involved in the accident, however, remained ex pane.

( 6 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal below framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car No. AP 25-4545? (2) Whether the person driving the car at the time of the accident is having valid driving licence? (3) Whether the car is insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 1 and whether the policy is in force on the date of the accident? (4) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? (5) To what relief?

( 7 ) IN support of their claim, claimants examined PWs 1 to 3 and marked Exhs. A-1 to A-15. On behalf of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document