A charge sheet and FIR in a motor accident case, when unchallenged by the respondents, constitute sufficient evidence to establish rash and negligent driving, satisfying the burden of proof required for awarding compensation.

JUDGMENT:

Heard,

Sri B.Vamsi Krishna, learned Counsel for the Claimants-appellants and Sri L.V.S.Prasad Babu, learned Counsel for the second respondent-United Insurance Company Limited.

The Court made the following order:

2. The parties are arrayed as arrayed in the present appeal.

3. Dissatisfied with the Award and Decree, dated 25.01.2017, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.626 of 2013, filed under Section 166 (1) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 , wherein the Tribunal dismissed the claim, the present appeal is filed by the appellants.

4. The facts germane in the present appeal are capsuled as under: Petitioners are the father and mother of the deceased, namely Banavath Madhu Naik @ Madhu Babu, who sustained fatal injuries in a road accident that occurred on 19.09.2013. The deceased was travelling along with his cousin, Mr.Bhukya Ramesh, towards Ibrahimpatnam on 19.09.2013 and at about 9.00 P.M., when they reached Paritala Bypass Cross Road on NH-65 main road, the offending lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072, coming from Vijayawada towards Kanchikacherla, in the wrong route in a rash and negligent manner, collided with them. As a result, both the deceased and his cousin sustained multiple grievous injuries. The deceased succumbed to his injuries on 07.10.2013, while his cousin also died on 19.09.2013 while undergoing treatment. In pursuance of the complaint, on 21.09.2013, the Station House Officer, Kanchikacherla Police Station registered Cr.No.227 of 2013 under Section 237 of IPC.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr.Vamsi Krishna, contended that, as per the pleadings before the Tribunal, the deceased was running a business under the name and style ‘Hanuman Tyre Re-trading Cool Process’ at Chillakallu Village prior to the accident and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per month. At the time of the accident, he was 21 years old and was contributing his entire income towards the family expenses. It is further contended that the Claimants incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs.50,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses. The deceased being the only son of the appellants, they claimed a total compensation of Rs.14,00,000/-.

6. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2 is the Insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and the respondent No.2 filed counter, denying the averments of the petition, contending that the respondent No.2 is not aware of the registration of the case in Cr.No.227 of 2013, under Section 304-A IPC. The other contention, which could be seen from the counter, is that the rider of the motor cycle was not possessing any driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Basing on the pleadings, so placed before the Tribunal, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the deceased, Banavath Madhu Naik @ Madhu Babu died in a Motor Vehicle accident which took place on 19.09.2013 at about 9.00 p.m., on the NH 65 main road near Paritala Byepass road in Kanchikacherla Village due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tipper lorry bearing No.AP 28 TB 5072 by its driver ?

2. Whether the petitioners 1 and 2 are entitled to the compensation as prayed for, if so, from whom ?

3. To what relief ?

8. During the course of trial, the Claim