In compensation claims under the Motor Vehicles Act, negligence can be established based on the preponderance of probabilities, not requiring direct evidence.

JUDGMENT :

B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.

Challenging the order dated 05.01.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.15/2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Addl.District Judge, Krishna, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’), the claimants filed the appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the learned Tribunal.

3. The appellants/claimants filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-for the death of Seeram Durga Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’), alleging that the 1st petitioner is wife, petitioners No.2 and 3 are children and the 4th petitioner is mother of deceased; The deceased used to work as mason and earning Rs.250/-per day; On 16.09.2011 at about 02.00 p.m. the deceased proceeding on his TVS Moped to go to his house to take lunch; on the way, one TATA ACE vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TC 5922 owned by the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent, came in a rash and negligent manner, in opposite direction in wrong route; and hit the moped of deceased; as a result the deceased fell down, sustained severe injuries to head and died on the spot.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the 3rd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter, while traversing with the material averments with regard to manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, age and avocation of the deceased, liability to pay compensation, contended that the deceased did not wear helmet while proceeding on his vehicle; and he was negligent, in occurrence of the accident; therefore, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

5. The respondents No.1 and 2, who are owner and driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 16 TC 5922 respectively, remained exparte.

6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased Seeram Durga Rao died in a motor accident that occurred on 16.09.2011 at about 02.00 p.m. at Cheruvu Center, Vidhyadharapuram, Vijayawada, due to rash and negligent driving of crime Tata Ace bearing No.AP 16 TC 5922?

2. What is the correct age and income of deceased by the date of accident?

3. Whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation as prayed for? If so, for what amount and from whom?

4. To what relief?

7. The petitioners to prove their case, examined the 1st petitioner as P.W-1, and a co-worker of deceased as P.W-2. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked in their evidence. The 3rd respondent/Insurance Company did not examine any witness, but filed Ex.B-1 copy of the policy.

8. The learned Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.Ws-1 and 2, Exs.A-1 to A-11, held that the petitioners failed to prove that accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent acts of the 1st respondent and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for compensation; and dismissed the petition without costs.

9. The learned counsel for appellants/claimants would submit that the claimants are wife, two minor children and mother of the deceased; their case is that the deceased was working as a mason and earning Rs.250/-per day; while so, on 16.09.2011 at about 02.00 p.m. the deceased was proceeding on TVS Moped from work place to house; on the way, an auto bearing No.AP 16 TC 5922 belonging to the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent came in opposite direction, rashly and negligently, in wrong route; dashed the moped of the deceased; as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained fatal injuries on head and died on the spot; therefore, the claimants, who are dependants on the deceased, filed the claim petition U/s.166 of M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-against the respondents No.1 to 3, who are driver of the crime vehicle, owner/insured of the crime vehicle, and Insurance Company/insurer of the crime vehicle respectively.

He would further submit that the claimants in order to establish