THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A. No.233 of 2002 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the owner of a motorcycle bearing No.AP-21/C 4054. He is said to have given the vehicle in December, 1997 to a Mechanic for repair. He stated that one Sri Jeevan Rao, son of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and brother of respondent No.3, came to the Mechanic, took away the vehicle without permission along with respondent No.4 in the night of 31.12.1997 and that the said Jeevan Rao died in an accident that occurred in the intervening night. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed M.V.O.P.No.1029 of 1998 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Kurnool claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. They pleaded that respondent No.4 came on the said vehicle to their house and took away Jeevan Rao and that thereafter, the accident has occurred. The age and earning of the deceased were furnished. The appellant opposed the O.P. by stating that the vehicle was taken away unauthorizedly and that the deceased and respondent No.4 travelled in a drunken condition. Respondent No.4 filed a counter-affidavit stating that the deceased was driving the vehicle and that he was not at all responsible. Through its order, dated 22.11.2001, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,500/- as compensation and apportioned the same among respondent Nos.1 to 3. The said order is challenged in this appeal. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Before the Tribunal, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Exs.A1 to A10 were filed. The appellant deposed as R.W.1 and respondent No.4 as R.W.2. The judgment in C.C.No.99 of 1998 instituted against respondent No.4 in the Court of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kurnool was also filed as Ex.B1. The case of the appellant throughout was that he gave the vehicle for repair to a Mechanic and from there, the deceased took it away in a drunken condition. Incidentally, it was the intervening night of 31.12.1997/01.01.1998 and it is not difficult to imagine the zeal of youth to celebrate the New Year. The deceased died and respondent No.4 sustained injuries. The statement of respondent No.4 as R.W.2 that the deceased drove the vehicle and the accident occurred on account of his negligence, remains unrebutted. Nowhere in the proceedings, it was alleged that the appellant parted with the vehicle in favour of the deceased. Further, the question as to whether the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of anyone i.e. the appellant herein and respondent No.4, was not at all dealt with in detail by the Tribunal, obviously because there was no evidence. In such cases, the only alternative is to award amount under ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, the appeal is partly allowed, reducing the compensation to Rs.50,000/-. (Rupees fifty thousand only). There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:05.11.2011. kdl