The need to establish the deceased was not responsible for the accident and the requirement to prove insurance coverage to make the insurance company liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants who are claimants/petitioners in M.V.O.P. No. 115 of 2013 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Court below dated 30.05.2017 by which the petition filed by the appellants/petitioners herein was dismissed by the lower Court.

2. The said petition was filed by the petitioners claiming an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the death of one Esthari (who herein after will be referred as deceased). The first appellant herein is the wife and other appellants are children of the deceased. According to the averments made in the above referred petition, it was the case of the appellants/petitioners that on 25-11-2012, the deceased went to Koppole village to attend the marriage of their relatives and returned home in the evening hours and at about 5.30 p.m. when he reached Gurrampude Village, the deceased fell down from Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle, as a result, he received severe injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Hospital at Nalgonda. Later, he was shifted to Titan Hospital, Hyderabad, where he died while undergoing treatment on 29-11-2012. The appellants have claimed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the deceased himself. The bike belongs to the first respondent herein. A complaint was lodged with the police Gurrampude and a case was registered under Section 304-A of IPC. The appellants have filed the petition against the owner of the motorbike and insurance company, from which a policy was obtained against the said bike. The first respondent/respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. The insurance company i.e. the present appellant contested the petition. They filed a counter denying the material averments of the petition including the policy issued against the vehicle, involvement of the bike in the accident and pleaded that the bike was falsely implicated in the case only for the purpose of insurance claim. Based on the above contentions, the trial Court framed the following four issues:

1. Whether the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Hero Honda Passion Pro Motorcycle bearing No. AP-24-AJ-7460?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. Whether the age, occupation and income claimed by the Petitioner is true?

4. To what relief?

3. The wife of the deceased has been examined as PW-1 and she has marked Exs.A1 to A9. The contesting respondent examined RW-1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. The trial Court did not accept the claim of the appellants herein and dismissed the petition vide order dated 31-5-2017.

4. The appeal is filed on the following grounds:

The award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence. The Tribunal committed error in dismissing the petition on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. The Tribunal failed to discuss the merits of the case and came to a wrong conclusion and that the Tribunal ought to have considered the deceased died due to the accident and as the petition was filed under Sections 163-A and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, it ought to have been allowed. The Tribunal did not consider Exs.A1 to A9 and failed to appreciate the appellants have proved the negligence of the respondents, thereby, sought for setting aside of the award and sought for compensation against the respondents herein.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in a motor cycle accident. Since the petition is filed under Section 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, it is sufficient, if the appellants are able to show the involvement of a motor bike, insurance policy against the bike and death of an individual by use of the said vehicle. Even though, the appellants are able to prove all these aspects, the Tribunal came to a wrong conc