JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2012 in M.V.O.P. No.742 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum –District Judge, Guntur, (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellant/claimant preferred this appeal questioning the dismissal of claim petition.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. The claimant has filed an application under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (short “M.V.Act”) for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-on account of the death of her son Mokkapati Satish (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the deceased'), in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.04.2011.

4. The factual matrix of the claimant’s case is that 26.04.2011 at about 10.00 PM, while the deceased was proceeding in his Auto bearing No.AP7 TW 3043 from Vinukonda to go to his village Chilakaluripet. When he reached Purushothapatnam, a lorry bearing No, AP-7-T 5985 (hereinafter will be referred to as 'the offending vehicle') driven by its driver rashly and negligently without observing traffic rules stopped the offending vehicle on the road. Consequently, the auto driver hit the offending vehicle from the back side. As a result, the deceased received multiple injuries and died on the spot. On a complaint, a case in Cr. No.105/2011 was registered under sections 304-A of I.P.C. of Chilakaluripet Police Station against the offending vehicle’s driver.

5. The 1st respondent, the offending vehicle's owner, remained ex parte.

6. The 2nd respondent filed its written statement, denying the material allegations of the petition inter alia and contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, who drove the Auto without maintaining the safety distance and dashed the stationed lorry from behind. The offending vehicle’s driver has no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, and the lorry has no valid permit and fitness certificate at the time of the accident.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Ex.A.1 to A.5. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 got marked with consent.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence as he drove the Auto negligently without observing the vehicles ahead on the road and dashed the stationed lorry; and the claim is dismissed.

9. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the entire claim by considering the age and avocation of the deceased instead of dismissing without granting a single pie; the Tribunal ought to have followed Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation Vs. Sarojamma and another, 2008 (4) A.L.D. Page 1 S.C., wherein the Apex Court held that proof of occurrence of an accident due to the use of the motor vehicle is sufficient to claim compensation under section 163-A of M.V.Act; but as per section 166 of M.V.Act, the burden is on the petitioner to prove the rash and negligent act; the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration of the citation reported in 2008 (4) A.L.T. Page 1 S.C., wherein it was clearly held that the intention of the legislature and finally concluded that the claim under section 163A of M.V.At is also for fault liability.

11. Controverting the submissions, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the findings and observations of the Tribunal.

12. Now the points for determination are:

I. Is the Tribunal justified in holding that the accident occurred due to the deceased's negligence?

II. Is the claimant entitled to compensation for the death of her son?

POINT NO.I:

13. As seen from the Tribunal's order, it has observed that even in a claim petition filed under s