HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2008 Date: 08-6-2011 Between Kona Gangadhara Rao … Appellant/Petitioner and A.Veerabhadra Rao and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2008 Judgment: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05-10-2007 passed in O.P.No.384 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, West Godavari district at Eluru, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the finding of the Tribunal below is erroneous in view of filing of the petition under Section 163A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) read with Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and therefore the compensation awarded under ‘no fault liability’ is not sustainable. 4. Now, the point for consideration is – whether the order of the Tribunal below is sustainable ? 5. Point:- As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner is the father of the deceased. Deceased Kona Rajesh met with the accident on 28-5-2006 while travelling in the auto on Jangareddigudem to Darbhagudem road near Reliance Petrol Bunk of Jangareddigudem Police Station limits. In order to prove the accident, P.W.1 got examined P.W.2, who alleged to have witnessed the accident. The Police after due investigation under Ex.A-1 FIR held that the accident was due to hit by an unknown vehicle. The driver of the auto in which the deceased was travelling also died. According to Ex.A-1, P.W.2 is not a direct witness to the accident. Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate, Ex.A-3 Motor Vehicles Inspector’s Report and Ex.A-4 inquest report also cumulatively read that the accident was due to hit by an unknown vehicle. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 is of no consequence in view of the clinching documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 to A-4. The Tribunal below while discussing the evidence on record came to the correct conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, in which the deceased was travelling. 6. Before the Tribunal below, the Insurance Company placed reliance on a decision reported in 2006 (4) ALT 496. In the above decision the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge, Anantapur dismissed the claim petition of the petitioners and on appeal this Court held and observed that compensation can therefore be awarded under ‘no fault liability’ under claim without awarding compensation under Section 140 even if the claim of the appellant under Section 166 cannot be allowed, facts of the case attract liability of the respondent under Section 140 of the Act and thereby awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the appellant therein. 7. Having gone through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 to A-4, I am of the view that the facts in the decision reported in 2006 (4) ALT 496 are squarely applicable to the case on hand. Accordingly, I see no grounds to differ with the finding of the Tribunal below while granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- under Section 140 of the Act but not under Section 166 of the Act under ‘no fault liability’. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal below is sustainable. 8. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 08th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.68 of 2008 08th June, 2011.