(Special Original Jurisdiction)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree dated 23.11.2005, dismissing the claim petition in M.O.P.No.905 of 2004 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Visakhapatnam.

The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

The claimants filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w.455 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of late Kodanda Rao @Kodandam (in short, ‘the deceased’) in a motor vehicle accident.

The case of the claimants, stated briefly, is as follows :

The deceased was aged about 60 years. He was a coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day. On 09.09.2003, the deceased and his wife were returning from their work at about 6.00 p.m. When they reached opposite to Vikash college, Sheelanagar, Visakhapatnam, the rider of motor cycle bearing No.A.P.32 B 3091 proceeding towards N.A.D.Kotha Road to B.H.P.V.Limited in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed against the deceased. As a result, he fell down and received grievous injuries and multiple fractures. He was shifted to R.K.Hospital, Gajuwaka. Later, he was shifted to K.G.Hospital, Visakhapatnam for better treatment where he was treated from 10.09.2003 to 21.10.2003. He underwent surgery for the fracture injuries. After he was discharged from the hospital, he returned to his native place. He was again admitted in Sri Venkataeswara Nursing Home at Pundi, Srikakulam District. He took treatment there from 23.10.2003 to 25.12.2003. Subsequently, he died on09.01.2004 due to the injures suffered by him in the accident.

The claimant No.1 is the wife and the claimant No.2 is the son of the deceased. The claimants did not inform to the police about the death of the deceased. The S.H.O. of the Gajuwaka police station registered a case in Cr.No.106 of 2003 under Section 338 I.P.C. against the respondent No.1 who is the driver-cum-owner of the motor cycle. The respondent No.2 is the insurer of the motor cycle.

The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

The respondent No.2 filed counter resisting the claim petition disputing the averments and further stating that unless the mandatory provisions under Section 64 (V)(B) of the Insurance Act,1938 but, the respondent No.1 has not complied the same.

On behalf of the claimants, P.W.1 Kancharana Venkamma (claimant No.1) and P.W.2 Dr.Ch.Kodanda Rao were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked.

PW1: Kancharana Venkamma (claimant No.1)

PW2: Dr.Ch.Kodanda Rao

Ex.A1: Certified true copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.106/2003 under Section338 I.P.C.

Ex.A2: Certified true copy of wound certificate.

Ex.A3: Certified true copy of charge sheet.

Ex.A4: O.P.chit issued by K.G.Hospital.

Ex.A5: Certificate issued by Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home.

Ex.A6: Death certificate issued by Gram Panchayat.

Ex.A7: Attested Xerox copy of policy.

Ex.A8: 37 medical bills for Rs.9,707.50 ps.

On behalf of the respondent No.2, no evidence was adduced.

After hearing both the parties, the Tribunal dismissed the petition holding a view that the claimants could not prove that the death of the deceased had resulted from the injuries suffered in the accident caused by use of a motor cycle.

Aggrieved by the same, this appeal was preferred by the claimants contending that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim without properly appreciating the evidence and that the Tribunal ought to have observed that the deceased died of the injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1.

The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the whole claim without granting any amount of compensation either for the injuries suffered or for the death caused in pursuance of the injuries.

The le