HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :1948 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellants-claimants challenging the order and decree dated 7.5.2004 in M.V.O.P. No. 287 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The brief facts of the case are that n 15.9.1998 at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased along with two others was proceeding in a jeep bearing No. AIC-T- 1968 from Mogunampalli to Zaheerabad and when they reached near the fields of Venkatram Reddy at about 9.00 pm., the driver of the jeep drove the jeep in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed against another jeep, due to which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently the deceased succumbed to the same while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Hence, the appellants- claimants filed the aforementioned claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the offending vehicle filed its counter affidavit denying the allegations levelled in the claim petition. He also denied the occurrence of the alleged accident on account of negligent driving on the part of its drive. He also disputed the age and avocation of the deceased. The insurance company also filed its counter affidavit denying the occurrence of the accident and the death of the deceased. It also disputed the age and avocation of the deceased. It also pleaded that the compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No. AIC T 1968 by its driver only ? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation, if so, to what quantum and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? During the course of the enquiry, on behalf of the appellants-claimants, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. However, after closure of the evidence, the 1st appellant, who claims to be the first wife of the deceased got herself examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. She also examined the mother of the deceased as R.W.2 to prove that she is the wife of the deceased and appellants 2 to 4 are her children born through the deceased and they are the legal heirs of the deceased. Having considered the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased and accordingly allowed the petition in part by granting compensation of Rs. 2,71,000/- in their favour. Challenging the same, the appellants, who claim to be the legal heirs of the deceased, filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the 1st appellant is no other than the first wife of the deceased and the appellants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased. He further contended that the appellants have also filed the relevant material like the school certificates, nativity and birth certificate of the children to prove that they are the wife and children of the deceased and the Tribunal without considering the same, has granted the compensation to the respondents-claimants alone. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants supported the impugned order and stated that the same does not require any interference. Before the Tribunal, the 1st appellant, who got herself examined as R.W.1 deposed that the deceased was her husband, that the appellants 2 to 4 are her children. Though she examined R.W.2, the mother of the deceased to show that she is the first wife of the deceased, however, she failed to state the date on which she married the deceased. She also did not file any material before the Tribunal nor examined any of the villagers to show that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and the appellants 2 to 4 are her children. On the contrary, the respondent No.1, filed Exs.A8, A9 and A10, copies of the community and nativity certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Zaheerabad; Photograph of P.W.1 and the deceased; and the legal heir certificate issued by the Village Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mogunampally Village before the Tribunal to show that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased and the respondents 2 and 3 are their children and that they are the actual legal heirs of the deceased. Admittedly, the appellants did not file any material to disprove the same, in the absence of which, the Tribunal having considered the documentary evidence on record, rightly held that the respondents 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of the deceased and accordingly granted compensation in favour of them. In the circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb