HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2202 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P. No.1088 of 1997 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, claiming a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- as compensation against the respondent. It was pleaded that one P. Narasimha, husband of the deceased 1st appellant and the father of the 2nd appellant, was working as a Security Incharge in a private firm M/s.K.R.B. Enterprises on a salary of Rs.1,500/- per month. According to them, Narasinha was crossing the road at Punjagutta cross roads on 29-07-1997 at about 8-30 PM and the respondent was driving the scooter bearing No.AP 9G 8578, dashed against him resulting in serious injuries and that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He is said to have died on the same day while undergoing treatment. With this and other allegations they claimed a sum of Rs.1,74,000/- as compensation. 2. The respondent filed a counter affidavit denying the allegations. He flatly denied the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the vehicle. He further pleaded the vehicle was sold away much prior to this accident to one Mr.Mallesh and a speculative claim was made by the appellants. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through order, dated 27-12-2001. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. 4. The 2nd appellant deposed as PW-1 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-7. The respondent deposed as RW-1 and did not file any documents. The basic requirement in a claim, filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, is that the involvement of the vehicle in the accident must be shown. Though the appellants pleaded that the respondent caused the accident while riding on a scooter, there was no supporting material for that. The documents filed by the appellants are in relation to the death of the deceased. Hardly there is any material to connect the death of the deceased to the respondent. Almost in a speculative manner, the number of the vehicle was mentioned and on the basis of entries, in the Registers maintained by the Transport Department, the name of the respondent was mentioned as accused. The fact, however, remains that the accused parted with the vehicle long prior to the occurrence of the accident. 5. The record placed before the Tribunal disclosed that the deceased was in a heavy drunken condition. The Post Mortem report was withheld from the Tribunal. Production thereof, would have revealed the exact cause of the death. The Tribunal took note of these aspects and dismissed the O.P. This Court is not inclined to take a different view. 6. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 05, 2011. KTL