The claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), at Karimnagar, challenging the dismissal order, dated 21.02.2003, passed in OP No. 361 of 1998, filed this appeal.

The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

The first claimant is the wife of late Dadi Odelu and the second claimant is their daughter and the third claimant is the adoptive father of late Dadi Odelu. On 23.02.1995 at about 11.30 AM the deceased and others were proceeding in an Auto bearing No. ABT 9291 being driven by one Md. Sadiq, the third respondent in the claim petition. When the said auto reached Mangalampalli bus stage, the Van bearing No.AP-9T-5724 being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from opposite direction and hit the auto. As a result of which, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and he was shifted to Singareni Hospital, wherein it was declared that he was brought dead. The driver of the auto and other passengers also sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to negligence of the first respondent i.e., van driver the claimants claimed compensation against respondents 1 and 2.

The first respondent is the driver and the second respondent is the owner of the said Van. The third respondent is the driver of the auto. The fourth respondent is the Insurance Company with which the Van of the second respondent is insured. The third respondent remained ex parte. The first and second respondents filed a common counter. The fourth respondent filed a separate counter. It is the case of the respondents 1, 2 and 4 that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the auto driver i.e., the third respondent. It is also their case that one of the passenger lodged a complaint to the police against the auto driver basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No.41 of 1995 against the third respondent- auto driver. The other averments of the claimants with regard to the manner in which accident was occurred and income of the deceased etc., have been denied.

The Tribunal framed the following issues.

1. Whether the accident was caused by the first respondent/driver by his rash or negligent driving of the vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to recover compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief?

On behalf of the claimants, the first claimant was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 to 4 were also examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

On appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,22,112/-. The Tribunal also held that the claimants cannot claim compensation from the respondents 1, 2 and 4 and there is no claim against the third respondent and accordingly dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said award, this appeal has been filed.

The main contention of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the claimants, is that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.2 and wrongly relied on Ex.A1. It is also argued that the auto being small vehicle when compared to the Van, the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the Van is responsible for the incident. It is also argued that mere use of the vehicle on public road is enough to claim compensation and when two vehicles are involved it cannot be definitely said that the driver of one vehicle is totally innocent. In support of his contentions he has relied on several decisions.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that soon after the accident, the passenger traveling in the auto lodged a complaint to the police, wherein it was categorically mentioned that the accident occurred due