The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claim petitioners to establish the accident as per the definition under the Motor Vehicles Act in order for the claim application to be maintainable.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is 2nd respondent/Insurance company and the respondents are claim petitioners and respondent No.1 in M.V.O.P.No.99 of 2009 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ongole.

The appellant filed the appeal questioning the legal validity of the order of the Tribunal.

2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim application.

3. The claim petitioners filed a claim petition under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.7,10,000.00 towards compensation for the death of Kancherla Venkata Ramanaiah in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21/9/2007.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows: The deceased is a driver of lorry bearing registration No.AP 16T 5549 of the 1st respondent. On 21/9/2007 the deceased went to Mahi Agro Pvt. Ltd. with a load of tobacco in the said lorry. As there was no cleaner in the lorry, the deceased went to the top of the lorry and while he was removing the tarpaulin over the load, unfortunately he slipped from the lorry and fell down and sustained multiple injuries and a fracture to left leg and later, he succumbed to injuries on 27/9/2007 while undergoing treatment.

The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said lorry. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claim petitioners.

5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a written statement by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that report to police was given one week after the occurrence of the incident and the petitioners and the 1st respondent cooked up a story that the deceased was the driver of the lorry at the time of accident for getting wrongful gain from the Insurance company.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the death of the deceased occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16T 5549 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim any compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? and

3. To what relief?

8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part and awarded a sum of Rs.5,18,800.00 towards compensation to the claim petitioners. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed the appeal.

10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties.

11. The grounds urged by the appellant/Insurance company are that the Tribunal failed to see that as per the first information report, the number of the vehicle involved in the accident is APK 5549, but the policy was issued for vehicle No.AP 16T 5549, and the claim petitioners falsely implicated the vehicle No.AP 16T 5549 for getting wrongful gain from the Insurance company, though it was not involved in the accident.

12. Now, the points for determination are:

1) Whether the deceased died in a motor vehicle accident? and

2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference?

13. POINT Nos.1 and 2: The pleadings of the petitioners are as follows:-

The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are parents and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are children of the deceased. The 1st respondent is owner of lorry bearing registration No.AP 16T 5549 and also wife of the deceased Venkata Ramanaiah. On 21/9/2007 the deceased went to Mahi Agro Pvt. Ltd. with a load of tobacco in the said lorry.

As there was no cleaner in the lorry, the deceased got into the top of the lorry and while he was removing the tarpaulin, which was tied