JUDGMENT:

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Tukaramji)

We have heard Mr. I. Gopal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer and perused the record.

2. This appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 26.10.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.492 of 2010 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

3. The appellants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.75 lakhs for the death of Mr. ARV Krishnam Raju in an automobile accident.

4. The appellants/petitioners (hereinafter ‘the petitioners’) case in brief is that, on 30.04.2010 at 3.15 p.m. at Panjagutta flyover while ARV Ramakrishna/deceased who is husband and father of petitioners 1 and 2 respectively proceeding on his Hero Honda Shine motorcycle bearing registration No.AP28AX 1611, another motorcycle i.e. Hero Honda CD Dawn bearing registration No. AP-7 AA 8366 (hereinafter ‘the crime vehicle’) driven by its rider in rash and negligent manner struck the motorcycle of the deceased and caused severe injuries all over his body and while undergoing treatment in Yashoda Hospital succumbed to injuries. Further pleaded that the deceased was aged 49 years and earned Rs.50,589/- per month as Technical Assistant in BHEL and the death had caused loss of their dependency, prayed for grant of Rs.75 lakhs as compensation.

5. During trial the first petitioner got herself examined as PW-1, the eyewitness as PW-2 and the Officer in Human Resources of BHEL as PW-3 and marked Exs:A-1 to A-8 and X- 1 to X-9. The respondent No.3/insurer got examined its officer/RW-1, the investigating officer/Ravi Kumar/RW-2 and treating doctors/RWs.3 and 4 and marked Exs:B-1 and C-1.

6. The tribunal basing on the evidence of the eyewitness/PW-2 and the investigating officer/RW-2, held that the discrepancies in the versions of the eyewitness and non filing of motor vehicle inspector’s report to prove the involvement of the crime vehicle and the evidence of RWs.3 and 4 are falling short in establishing the nexus between the injuries suffered in the accident and the death, dismissed the petition.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the evidence of eyewitness/PW-2 and the investigating officer/RW- 2 are establishing the involvement of crime vehicle in the accident and the medical evidence is showing that while undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed. Thus the tribunal erred in concluding that the crime vehicle was not involved in the accident and the death was not due to the injuries suffered in the accident. Thus prayed for interference.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer would submit that the statement of PW-2 itself making out the improbability of being eyewitness to the occurrence. Further the first information statement about the accident was after 22 days and no material has been referred as to how the involvement of the crime vehicle was made out. Above all, it is for the petitioners to prove that the injuries suffered in the accident led to the death. In absence of evidence, the tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition and there no tenable ground to consider otherwise in the appeal.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions and perused the materials on record.

10. At the outset the date of the accident, the deceased’s admission in the hospital undergoing treatment, later his death are not specifically disputed by the respondent No.3/insurer.

11. The tribunal had rejected the claim petition on two grounds; firstly the involvement of the crime vehicle has not been established secondly, the evidence is failing to prove that the death of the deceased was consequence of the injuries suffered in the accident.

12. In regard to accident and involvement of the crime vehicle, the petitioners relied on the evidence of eyewitness/

PW-2 and the final report/Ex.A-2 of the investigating agency.

13. T