JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2014 in MVOP No.300 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum – District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short 'the Tribunal'), the claimants have preferred this appeal questioning the order passed by the tribunal dismissing the claim petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP.No.300 of 2012.

3. The claimants filed a petition under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-for the death of Suryanarayana (hereinafter referred to as deceased), who died in a motor vehicle accident. In the claimant's case, 12.06.2011, in the early hours, the deceased reached Moida bridge bearing No.AP35V9297 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle), the auto driver drove the same rashly and negligently at high speed and lost control, resulting in the auto-turned turtle from the road. The deceased sustained fatal injuries on his head and left leg. He was shifted to Dr A.Srirama Murthy Hospital, Vizianagaram. The deceased was treated for 25 days as an inpatient and discharged on the evening of 05.07.2011, and unfortunately, on 06.07.2011 early morning, the deceased died at his house.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 did not put up their contest and remained exparte. The 3rd respondent filed a counter-submitting that there is no nexus between the death of the deceased M. Suryanarayana and his alleged injuries sustained in the accident.

5. Based on the pleadings, the tribunal formulated the necessary issues for consideration.

6. Before the tribunal, on behalf of petitioners, 1 to 4 got examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Exs.X1, X2. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.B1 and Exs.X3 to X5.

7. On appreciation of evidence on record, the tribunal finds that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle’s driver and the deceased sustained grievous injuries but dismissed the claim petition. On the ground that claimants failed to establish death occurred due to injuries caused in the accident.

8. Learned counsel for appellants vehemently contends that the tribunal erred in concluding that the death of the deceased is not due to an accident, despite finding that the accident was proved and the deceased sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of 1st respondent.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the observations and findings of the learned tribunal.

10. Now points for consideration are whether there is nexus between the injuries caused to the deceased and his death and whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation.

POINT :

11. After reading the material on record and submissions made on behalf of both sides and on perusal of the order passed by the tribunal, this Court views that there is no dispute that the deceased sustained injuries in the accident held on 12.06.2011. The tribunal's finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent offending vehicle’s driver is not disputed. The finding given by the tribunal regarding the age of deceased as 50 years is not disputed. The respondent/insurance company has not preferred any appeal or cross-objections questioning the said finding of the tribunal. The learned counsel for both parties addressed arguments only in respect of the tribunal's finding that there is no nexus between the injuries caused to the deceased and the death of the deceased. In view of the same, this Court views that the facts relating to the accident need not be mentioned in detail.

12. The claimants got examined PWs.1 to 4; PW. 1 is the deceased's wife. She is not an eyewitness to the accident. To prove the accident, the petitioners examined PW.2 and relied on Exs.A1, A3 and A4 documents. The offending vehicle’s driver is not examined to speak about the manner of the accident. The main contention of the 3rd respondent is that there is no nexus between the deceased's death and his injuries. Th