JUDGMENT :

V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The appellant is the Claimant in M.V.O.P. No. 350 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool and the respondents are the respondents in the said case.

2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application.

3. The claimant filed a Claim Petition under sections 163-A and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 16.02.2005.

4. The brief averments of the claim petition are as follows:

On 16.02.2005, the petitioner, who was the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-02-T-1556, for which the first respondent was the owner, took a load of liquor from Hyderabad and proceeding towards Kurnool and when the lorry reached near K.M. stone No. 189/4 on NH-7 road, at about 5.00 p.m. the petitioner lost his control over the lorry and dashed against the lorry going ahead, which was going with the load of ground nut husk, resulting which the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.

5. The first respondent remained ex-parte. The second respondent filed counter denying the claim application and contended that the claimant is not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the injuries sustained by the petitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in an motor accident that was occurred on 16.02.2005 at about 5.00 a.m. on account of rash and negligent driving of driver i.e. petitioner himself, bearing No. AP-02-T-1556 belongs to first respondent?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

(iii) To what relief?

7. On behalf of the petitioner, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 and Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of 2nd respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.

8. At the culmination of enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal dismissed the petition.

9. Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal.

10. Now, the points for consideration are:

1. Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation as prayed for?

11. POINT Nos. 1 and 2:

In order to prove the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner relied on his own evidence as PW-1. As per the own case of the petitioner, which is also substantiated by his own evidence as PW-1, when he was proceeding with the load of liquor by driving the lorry bearing No. AP-02-T-1556 and while he reached KM stone No. 189/4 on NH-7 road at about 5.00 p.m. he lost control over the lorry and dashed against the lorry going ahead with the load of groundnut husk, as a result of which, he sustained multiple injuries. As per his own case, the first respondent is the owner of the lorry, but the first respondent remained ex-parte.

12. The contention of the second respondent/Insurance Company is that no such accident was occurred on 16.02.2005 and a false story was concocted only to facilitate him to make a false claim for compensation for the injuries sustained by him in some other accident and first respondent colluded with petitioner to make a false claim and so the first respondent remained ex-parte.

13. The fact that the crime vehicle was insured with second respondent/Insurance Company under a valid policy under Ex.B1 and the same was on force as on the date of occurrence of alleged accident is undisputed. Generally when any accident was occurred involving the vehicle rendered with the policy by the insurance company causing injuries to the inmates of such vehicle including