HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.946 OF 1999 DATED: 04.11.2009 BETWEEN: P.Anil Kumar .. Appellant And Degani Kadiramma and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.946 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Order dated 28.11.1998 passed in O.P.No.191 of 1993 by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. 2. The first respondent before the learned Tribunal who is the appellant herein, is the owner of the offending vehicle bearing No.ABC 2647 involved in the accident. 3. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.75,000/- by the legal representatives of the deceased on account of the death of the deceased Degani Koralappa in a motor vehicle accident, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- exonerated the second respondent – insurance company from paying compensation to the claimants, but fastened liability on the appellant (owner of the vehicle alone). 4. Now in this appeal, the owner of the vehicle/appellant challenges the said finding. 5. It is mentioned in the claim petition and also had spoken to by PW.1 that the offending vehicle was driven by its owner, who is no other than the first respondent, at the time of accident. However, the said fact was disputed by the second respondent – insurance company and it’s counsel while cross examining PW.1 suggested to him that one Damodar Naidu was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, but not the first respondent. The said suggestion was denied by PW.1. Ex.A.3 certified copy of the first information report reveals that a person by name Damodar Naidu was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. 6. The learned Tribunal basing on the contents of Ex.A.3 certified copy of the First Information Report and also considering the fact that the appellant did not file his counter and did not adduce any evidence nor he even cross examined PW.1 held that the initial burden was discharged by the second respondent – insurance company and the first respondent did not place any material before the Tribunal enabling it to fasten the liability on the second respondent – insurance company. 7. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 8. The contention that the learned Tribunal did not afford any opportunity to file counter or to adduce evidence, cannot be accepted since it is not based on any material available on record. Further the original O.P. is of the year 1993. The appellant, who did not avail the opportunity cannot be afforded any such opportunity at this point of time by remitting back the matter to the Tribunal since it results in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal which is based on evidence requires no interference in this appeal and the same is confirmed. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 04.11.2009 Kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.946 OF 1999 DATED: 04.11.2009