The court established that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent, warranting compensation for the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT:

This Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the legal representatives of the deceased assailing the award dated 05.12.2006 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2003.

2. Heard arguments of Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, the learned counsel for appellants. For respondent No.1, Sri V.Subramanyam, the learned counsel made appearance but no arguments were submitted. For respondent No.2-Insurance Company, Smt. S.A.V.Ratnam, the learned counsel submitted arguments.

3. The following facts are required to be noticed:

This is a case of an auto-mobile accident that occurred on 02.05.2002 at about 4:15 P.M. at Tirupati-Renigunta main road, near Vartha Paper Press. In this incident Sri R.Rajendra Reddy died. About the auto-mobile accident police registered F.I.R./Ex.A.1. After due investigation, a charge sheet was laid as per Ex.A.5. The deceased was subjected to inquest/Ex.A.3 and was subjected to autopsy/Ex.A.4. At the relevant time mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 T 6787 was owned by Sri K.Beeran Kutty/respondent No.1 herein. He got it insured as per Ex.B.1-insurance policy. On the date of the accident/02.05.2002, the insurance policy was effective. Sri B.Venugopalachari was stated to be the driver of the mini lorry bearing registration No.AP 03 T 6787 and at the material point of time he was holding a valid and effective driving licence. There were no violations of insurance policy conditions. To speak about the manner in which the auto mobile accident occurred there was on record the evidence of PW.2-Sri K.Karupuswamy. At the material point of time the deceased-Sri Rajendra Reddy was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 04 B 7069 and PW.2 was the pillion rider.

4. Grieved by the death of Sri Rajendra Reddy, his wife, two minor children, parents filed M.V.O.P.No.320 of 2003 before the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. They prayed for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and laid their claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The first respondent therein was the owner of the alleged offending mini lorry. Respondent No.2 therein was the insurance company. On behalf of the owner/respondent No.1 therein it was pleaded that the accident was not out of rash or negligent driving of the driver employed by him and the whole fault lies with the motorist/deceased. It was positively pleaded that the motorist in the effort of overtaking the lorry hit the lorry and fell down and died. Insurance company in its pleadings stated that there was no fault on part of the driver of mini lorry. It was positively pleaded that it was a case of hit and run and the alleged mini lorry was falsely implicated in the incident and there was collusion on part of the claimants and respondent No.1.

5. After analysis of evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal categorically held that while the deceased was driving his motorcycle the alleged mini lorry came on his back side and dashed the motor bike and caused his death (vide page No.5 of the impugned award). About the involvement of the alleged offending mini lorry, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the evidence was not satisfactory and F.I.R. was registered six months after the incident and therefore, it held that it was a case of hit and run and there was no negligence of the driver of the alleged mini lorry in this incident. While at page No.6 of the impugned award the learned Claims Tribunal recorded that there were no violations of conditions of the insurance policy and compensation is to be paid to the claimants, the liability was on part of the owner as well as the insurance company. However, in view of the fact that the subject matter accident was not proved to have been one out of rash or negligent driving of mini lorry, it dismissed the claim. It did not make any asses