The appellants filed O.P.No.956 of 2000 before the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Warangal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on account of the death of Kunta Venkanna, husband of appellant No.1, son of appellant Nos.2 and 3 and brother of appellant Nos.4, 5 and 6. It was stated that Venkanna was working as an Advocate Clerk at Warangal and that on 30.07.2000, himself and another Clerk, by name Bommera Raju (P.W.1) were coming from Wardhannapet to Warangal and that when they reached Panthini Village, a Jeep bearing No.AP12 T 1700, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, dashed against the Scooter, resulting in death of Venkanna and injuries to Bommera Raju. It was pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Jeep. The deceased was said to be aged 25 years and that his income was Rs.4,000/- per month.

2. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by respondent No.2. A counter was filed putting the appellants herein to strict proof of the facts pleaded by them. It was also pleaded that there is a possibility of the deceased himself being guilty of negligence. The averments as to income, age and loss of dependency were also disputed.

3. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through order, dated 29.11.2003, holding that the involvement of the Jeep in the accident was not proved. Hence this appeal.

4. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is perverse, since it recorded a finding, which is not supported by any evidence at all. He contends that in one voice, one of the injured in the same accident, P.W.1, and an inmate of the Jeep, P.W.3, have stated that the accident occurred due to rashness on the part of the driver of the Jeep and still, a finding was recorded to the effect that the involvement of the Jeep is not proved. The learned counsel further submits that the only witness examined by respondent No.2 i.e. R.W.1 has admitted his ignorance about the facts of the case. He also submits that the deceased was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and there was a bright prospect for him to improve his income.

5. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, on the other hand, submits that though the appellants pleaded that the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the driver of the Jeep, the evidence on record did not support it. The learned counsel further submits that mere registration of a criminal case does not by itself prove the involvement.

6. The O.P. filed by the appellants herein was heard along with another O.P. being M.V.O.P.No.1063 of 2000 filed by Bommera Raju, who figured as P.W.1 herein. The Tribunal framed a common issue in both the O.Ps., namely “whether the accident occurred on 30.07.2000 was due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. AP 12 T 1700 driven by its Driver”. The second Issue in both the O.Ps. was as to the entitlement of the claimants, to be paid the compensation.

7. On behalf of the appellants, P.W.s1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were filed. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were filed. The first issue was answeredin the negative. Therefore, the Tribunal did not deal with the second issue at all.

8. Before this Court, two points arise for consideration, namely;

(1) Whether the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the Driver of the Jeep?

(2) Whether the appellants are entitled to be paid any compensation and if so, the quantum thereof?

9. One Sri Bommera Raju, who is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.1063 of 2000, deposed not only with reference to his claim, but also about the accident and the death of the deceased in M.V.O.P.No.956 of 2000. He is shown as P.Ws.1 and 3, obviously, with reference to different cases. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. She is