Claimants must establish the involvement of the offending vehicle in motor vehicle accident cases to be entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

The appellants/claimants filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award passed by the Motor vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl.Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2013, dated 06.10.2016, wherein the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants earlier filed M.V.O.P.No.406 of 2013 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, who died in the accident. It is contended that on 25.12.2008, the deceased i.e., Sri S.Laxma Reddy who worked as Head Constable in CRPF was proceeding on his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing No.AP-22-Q-3686 along with one Dharmia as pillion rider and when they reached near Kalyan Nagar, the driver of the Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR- 0143 drove the tractor in opposite direction at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased motor cycle, as a result, the deceased died on the spot. The Police of Kalwakurthy Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.248 of 2008 under Section 304-A of IPC.

3a. The contention of the appellants before the Tribunal, was that as on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 39 years and the deceased got 10 years of permanent service and on his death, the claimants/petitioners lost their dependency and claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- from the respondents.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the Tractor remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 – Reliance General Insurance Company filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the deceased and submitted that crime vehicle was not having valid insurance coverage, the driver of the said crime vehicle did not have valid and subsisting driving licence to drive the effective offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle was not road worthy to ply and further mainly contended that the crime vehicle was not involved in the said accident and the compensation claimed is exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-22-Q-3686 (Tractor) and AP-22-Q-3693 causing death of S.Laxma Reddy?

ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. On behalf of petitioners P.ws 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.13 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, R.w1 was examined and Exs.B1 and B.2 were marked.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidences and perused the material on record and the evidence placed by appellants and respondent No.2, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that petitioners/claimants failed to establish that the Crime Vehicle i.e., Tractor AP-22-BV-0018 and trailer No.AP-22-AU-TR-0143 was involved in the said accident and the said alleged Tractor and Trailer dashed the deceased resulting in death of the deceased.

8. Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellants/