JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 23.03.2007 in M.V.O.P. No.284 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short, "the tribunal"), whereby the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under no-fault liability, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as arrayed in the M.V.O.P.

3. The claimants have filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of their daughter Shaik Mumtaz Begum, aged 15 years, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.08.2004. From now on, the said Shaik Mumtaz Begum will be referred to as “the deceased''.

4. It is the case of the claimants that on 24.08.2004, the deceased, along with her mother, were proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 07 X 8383 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”) at 7.00 PM, from Brindavan Gardens to their house at Swarna Bharathi Nagar, Guntur Town, on the way to Dakshinya school, the offending vehicle involved in the accident, as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to the Government Hospital, where she died while undergoing treatment on the same day.

5. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle, has remained ex- parte.

6. The second respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle, filed a written statement denying the manner of the accident, age, and income of the deceased. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was not in a fit condition to ply on the road and not having a permit from RTO and its driver also not having a valid driving licence, and also the insurance company was not aware of the registration of the crime against the auto.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim, during the trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and got marked Exs.B.1 and B.2.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, on issue No.1, the tribunal held that the accident not occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle's driver, but due to the negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 7 U 1780 and 1781, and on issue No.2, the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/- under no-fault liability. Hence, the appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both parties.

10. Learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants contended that the tribunal’s finding regarding the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer is not supported by any evidence. The tribunal erred in disbelieving the oral testimony of eyewitnesses who are also traveling along with the deceased in the offending vehicle and erroneously awarded compensation only under no-fault liability.

11. The learned counsel for the second respondent has supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

12. Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel and upon perusal of the material evidence on record, the points that arise for consideration are,

I. Whether the tribunal erred in holding that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (auto).

II. Whether the tribunal awarded just and reasonable compensation or require modification.

POINT No.I:

a. During the trial, to substantiate their claim, the first claimant himself was examined as P.W. 1. He is the husband of the second claimant. It is not in dispute that the deceased is their daughter, and she was about 15 years old at the time of the accident. According to the evidence of P.W.1, on 23.08.2004 at about 7 pm he and his wife, the deceased, along with one old lady were proceeding in the offending vehicle from Brindavan Gardens to go to their house. On the way between JKC college and Daksh