The court underscored that the claimant must establish negligence to secure compensation, emphasizing that eyewitness testimony and FIR constitute valid evidence to substantiate claims in vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Court of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Fast Track Court) in O.P.No.481 of 2003, dated 22.09.2005, the claim petitioner therein preferred the present Appeal seeking for grant of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred as per their array before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased-Narayana @ Prem Sagar filed a petition under Section 166 read with Rule 455 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of his son in a motor vehicle accident that took place on the intervening night of 01/02-01-2003. It is stated by the petitioner that on the intervening night of 01/02-01-2003 at about 1.30 A.M., when the deceased proceeded on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-9-K-5962 from Ayodhya Hotel side towards Abids, one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28U-7822 came at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. As such, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital for treatment and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 02.01.2003 at 6.00 A.M.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Saifabad Police Station registered a case in Crime No.6 of 2003, under Section 337 of IPC.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that as on the date of accident, his deceased son was aged 24 years and used to work as Server in Silver Oak Bar & Restaurant, Punjagutta and earn an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month towards his salary and contribute the same for maintenance of their family. Due to sudden demise of his deceased son, their family suffered mental agony, put to sudden shock and also lost their sole bread winner of the family. It is contended by the petitioner that as the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28U-7822, as such, he filed claim petition against respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28U-7822.

6. Before the Trial Court, respondent No.1/owner of crime Auto Trolley remained ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, involvement of Auto Trolley in question and contended that the petitioner had not filed any document showing that the 1st respondent is the owner of crime Auto Trolley and that the said Auto Trolley is covered under valid insurance policy and further contended that the alleged accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving on part of the deceased-Narayana, as such, they are not liable to pay compensation and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Trial Court framed certain issues mentioned below for trial:

i. Whether the accident in question took place on 01/02-01-2003 due to rash and negligent driving of the Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28-U-7882 by its driver?

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

iii. To what relief ?

9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and also got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company did not chose to adduce any oral evidence, however, got marked Ex.B1-copy of I