Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants are entitled to compensation without the necessity of proving negligence on the part of the deceased.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

1. This appeal is by the claimants/appellants calling in question the judgment and award dated 03.01.2017 in MVC No.222/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Harihar, dismissing the claim petition filed under Section 163-A of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (‘MV Act’ for short) as the appellants failed to prove issue No.1, the death of husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant No.2 in the head-on collision involving Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-17/A-6140 and Eicher Lorry bearing Reg.No.AP-03/X-0678.

2. The brief facts that leading to file the appeal are as under:-

On 06.06.2013, at about 8.20 p.m., deceased Ramesh being driver of Tata Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-17/A-6140 moving near Makanur Cross situated on NH-4 colluded with Eicher Goods Vehicle bearing No.AP-03-X-0678. The deceased, who was the driver of Tata Ace vehicle lost his consciousness due to severe injuries suffered in the accident and was taken to the hospital. He was inpatient for a period of two days and thereafter, succumbed to the injuries at S.S.Hospital, Davanagere. The driver of the Eicher Goods Vehicle registered a crime making allegations against the deceased that he was the root cause for the accident. The appellants filed claim petition under Section 163A of the MV Act, 1988.

3. The case of the appellants before the Tribunal was that there was head-on collision between two vehicles and deceased has suffered severe injuries resulting in his death during treatment. He was working as a Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.3,200/- p.m. taking care of appellants, who are his wife and daughter.

4. On notice, both the respondents No.1 and 2 appeared through their respective counsel and respondent No.3 being absent was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company filed written statement denying the contentions of the appellants taking defence that it is the deceased, who is responsible for the accident and was negligent while driving the vehicle. He being the tort feasor is not entitled for any compensation.

5. The Tribunal subsequent to the pleadings, framed three issues, which reads as follows:-

“1. Whether the petitioner proves that on 06/06/2013 at about 08.20 p.m when the petitioner’s husband of deceased Ramesh drive the Tata ACE bearing Reg.No.KA- 17/A-6140 near Makanur Cross, P.B Road, NH-4 respondent No.1 is the driver of Eicher Goods bearing Reg.No.AP-03/X-0678 drove the same coming from opposite direction dashed to the deceased vehicle, as a result Ramesh sustained succumbed to the injuries and taken him to Government hospital for treatment, after two days of the accident he died in the hospital?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as sought in the petition? If so, what is the quantum of compensation and from whom petitioner is entitled?

3. What order or award?”

6. The appellants to prove their case, examined appellant No.1 as PW-1 and got marked 8 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.8. An official of respondent No.2 was examined as RW-1 and Insurance policy of Eicher Goods vehicle was marked as Ex.R.1.

7. The Tribunal upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the materials placed before it, answered issue No.1 in the Negative and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition on the ground more specifically stated at paragraph No.18 which reads as follows:-

“18. After going through the both decisions on which parties have placed their reliance. I have gone through the undisputed police records. In the case on hand the petitioners have got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. They also produced the certified copy of charge sheet. That has not been marked by the petitioners. However judicial note of the same has been taken i