JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.541 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Kadapa at Rajampet (for short, "the tribunal"), whereby the tribunal dismissed the claim petition, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

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

3. The claimants have filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of the death of their son, Vemula Lakshumaiah, in a road accident that occurred on 10.12.2009. Vemula Lakshmaiah will be referred to as "the deceased."

4. The claimants' case is that on 10.12.2009, the deceased and friends left their village, Ramakrishnapuram, in Sidhout Mandal of Kadapa District on a two-wheeler bearing No. AP 04 L 2496. After finishing their work in Kadapa, they were all returning by motorcycle to their village. One Srinivasulu was riding the motorcycle, whereas Venkatasubbaiah was the first pillion rider, and the deceased was the second pillion rider. When they arrived at Sivunipalli on the Kadapa-Rajampeta main road around 8.30 p.m., the first respondent's jeep, bearing No. AP 21 V 6145, came from the Kadapa side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle on its rear side. As a result, the deceased and two others fell and sustained injuries, and the deceased died instantly. The police recorded the statement of Bathala Venkata Subbaiah and registered a case in Cr. No. 160 of 2009.

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

6. The second respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle, filed its counter, submitting that the Jeep of the first respondent was never involved in the accident. The claimants filed a false case against the second respondent by falsely implicating the vehicle belonging to the first respondent in order to claim compensation. A hit-and-run case was registered by Sidhout police, and the police filed a charge sheet after three months. The claimants must prove that the driver had a valid and effective driving licence and that the said Jeep was involved in the accident.

7. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal framed relevant issues. To substantiate the claim on behalf of the claimant during the trial, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs. A.1 to A.4. On behalf of the second respondent, R.W.1 was examined, and marked Exs.B.1 to B.3.

8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the tribunal held that the claimant failed to establish the vehicle's involvement in the accident and dismissed the claim petition.

9. I have heard the learned counsel representing both the parties.

10. The appellant's/claimant's learned counsel argued that the tribunal overlooked that the police had filed a charge sheet against the crime vehicle following the investigation. But the tribunal could not see the information furnished by the police and registered a case in Crime No. 160 of 2009 as a hit-and-run case; subsequently, during the investigation, the vehicle's involvement was established.

11. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent has supported the findings and observations of the tribunal.

12. Upon hearing the argument of both the learned counsel and having perused the record, now the points that arise for consideration are,

I. Whether the tribunal is justified in holding that the claimants failed to establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident?

II. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation amount as claimed?

POINT No. I:

a. The second claimant, the deceased's mother, was examined as P.W. 1. It is not her evidence that she witnessed the accident. To prove the accident, the claimants examined P.W.2, Bathala V