The court reiterated that in civil claims like those under the Motor Vehicles Act, establishing claims by preponderance of probability suffices, promoting victim compensation over procedural technicalities.

JUDGMENT :

A. HARI HARANADHA SARMA, J.

1. The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.418 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, (hereinafter referred to as „the learned MACT‟), feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.01.2017 passed therein filed the present appeal. The petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the learned MACT.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as „the claimants‟ and „the respondents‟ as per their status before the learned MACT.

3. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto bearing registration No.AP 21 Y 7759 (hereinafter referred to as „the offending vehicle‟); and Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured.

Case of the Claimants:

4.....

(i) One Mangali Veeranna (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was waiting for a means of transport to travel to Nannur Village on 02.12.2009. While he was waiting near the Dhaba situated close to Postal Colony, the offending vehicle, driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner, hit the deceased, resulting in his instantaneous death. The driver of the offending vehicle did not stop and flied away from the scene. Upon receiving the information, the police registered a case, conducted an inquiry, and filed a charge sheet against Respondent No.1 vide Crime No. 152 of 2009 at Kurnool Traffic Police Station and C.C.No.403 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kurnool.

ii. The deceased, who was in good health and aged about 50 years old by the time of his death. He was working as a barber, earning Rs.200/- to Rs.300/- per day, and used to participate in certain functions with his team, earning an additional income of Rs.2,000/- per month. Further, he was cultivating lands, earning between Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per annum from agricultural activities.

5. Claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, claimant Nos.2 to 4 are the daughters and claimant Nos.5 is the son. All of them are dependants and legal heirs, and hence entitled for just and reasonable compensation.

6. Respondent No.1-owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte.

Case of Respondent No.2-Insurance Company:

7.....

(i) The claimants shall prove all the allegations made. They must prove valid and subsisting insurance policy issued by Respondent No.2-Insurance Company for the offending vehicle. The case involves a hit-and-run accident, and the jurisdiction for the claim lies with the enquiry officer of the relevant division or taluka of the district. According to the FIR, it is a hit-and-run case, hence, the learned MACT does not have jurisdiction. The alleged offending vehicle has been falsely implicated. The claimants shall prove the negligence of the driver and valid driving licence. There was no transport endorsement; therefore, there is violation of conditions of policy. The claimants shall prove the age, occupation, income of the deceased, as well as the dependency of the claimants.

8. On the strength of pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial by the learned MACT:

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto Rickshaw bearing registration No. AP 21 Y 5579?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered?

3. To what relief?

9. Evidence before the learned MACT: