This appeal is directed against the Order dt. 4.9.2003 in MVOP. No. 565 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District, Srikakulam, by the claimants, whereby their claim petition was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

On 26.12.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. the Tractor-trailer bearing No. AP 37 U 203/AP 5 T 5261 belonging to the 1st respondent was engaged by the brother of the deceased to carry stones from Vakalavalasa to Ragolu. The deceased Suryanarayana was assisting his brother in the said work. When the said tractor and Trailer reached Ragolu junction on Palakonda – Srikakulam road, the driver of the tractor stopped it so as to enable the deceased to board the tractor. When the deceased was trying to board the tractor, the 1st respondent without observing whether the deceased boarded the tractor or not drove it rashly and negligently and as a result of which the deceased Suryanarayana fell down and the trailer ran over him. The deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to injuries at Government Hospital, Srikakulam.

The appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs.2.00 Lakhs for the death of the deceased in the alleged accident, against the respondents.

Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellants, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents.

Admittedly, Respondents have not adduced any evidence. According to PW 3, the accident occurred in front of his shop. PW 3 in his chief examination deposed that the deceased was waiting at his medical shop and then the tractor came and stopped in front of his shop and when the deceased was boarding the trailer, the driver suddenly drove the same and the deceased fell down and the tractor ran over him. However, in his cross examination, he stated that while the tractor was in slow motion, the deceased Suryanarayana was trying to board the same. On the basis of this, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased was responsible for accident and the driver of the tractor is not responsible. From the evidence of PW 3, it appears that the tractor was stopped to enable the deceased to board the tractor. Then the deceased tried to board the same and in the meanwhile the driver of the tractor started it and even when the tractor was in slow motion, the deceased continued his efforts to board the trailer. It has to be seen that the driver of the tractor appears to be mainly responsible for the accident. In fact the circumstances reveal that, as per understanding the deceased was waiting to board the tractor at the junction. The driver of the tractor knows very well that the deceased was boarding the trailer. He ought to have waited till the deceased completely boarded the trailer. It appears the driver started the tractor without confirming whether the deceased boarded the trailer. By stretch of no imagination it can be said that deceased alone is responsible for the accident. Even if it is admitted that the deceased tried to board the trailer, when it was in motion, the driver cannot escape his responsibility. The Tribunals have a great responsibility to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.

Even otherwise, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial piece of legislation. Sections 140 and 163-A of the Act enables the claimants to claim compensation without making any plea or establishing the fact that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. In a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the claimants need not plead or establish that the death or permanent disability had been caused due to any wrongful act.

The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that at this stage the claimants shall not be allowed to amend the claim and claim compensation under Section 163-A of the Act. Since there is no limitation for a claim petition a