IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2369 of 2003 Between: Medagoni Sunitha and another .. Appellants AND J. Seetha Mahalaxmi and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1013 of 2000 dated 16-1-2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The factual background for the appeal is that the deceased Venkatesham and Yellanki Narsimha were coming on scooter near Dandumalkapur stage on N.H.No.9 on 10-9-2000, when a lorry was alleged to have touched the right side of the scooter on which Venkatesham received injuries and died. Choutuppal Police registered Crime No.100 of 2000 and the wife and minor daughter of Venkatesham sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- jointly and severally from the respondents claiming Venkatesham to be earning Rs.2,000/- per month at the age of 25 years. The 2nd respondent-insurer alone contested the claim contending that the alleged rashness and negligence of the lorry driver are denied and the other allegations of the claimants are also denied. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimants to compensation and the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 during enquiry. It rendered the impugned award noting that PWs.1 and 2 are not eye-witnesses to the incident and as it was only established that the accident had occurred by the use of motor vehicle, the Tribunal, in the absence of any proof of negligence of the lorry driver, restricted the compensation to the no fault liability compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The said sum of Rs.50,000/- was directed to carry interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs and further directions were given about the apportionment and disbursement of the compensation. The claimants challenged the said award in this appeal contending that the evidence of PW.2 should have been accepted as proving the negligence and rashness in driving and compensation should have been granted as claimed applying the appropriate multiplier. Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri N. Parameswara Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer are heard and none appeared for the 1st respondent-owner of the lorry before this Court. Ex.A.1-FIR was registered on the report of the lorry driver, which attributed rashness and negligence in driving the scooter to the deceased. Ex.A.2-inquest report recorded the opinion of the independent mediators that when the deceased was unable to control the scooter while attempting to overtake a lorry, the accident occurred due to the scooter hitting the lorry of the 1st respondent. Exs.A.1 and A.2 thus suggest the responsibility for the accident to be on the deceased himself, but not on the lorry driver. While PW.1 was not an eye-witness to the accident, even PW.2 stated that by the time they reached the place of accident, the accident had already occurred. Under the circumstances, in the face of Exs.A.1 and A.2, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in concluding that there was no proof of negligence on the part of the lorry driver and consequently restricting the grant of compensation to the claimants to the no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The quantum of compensation, therefore, cannot be interfered with in this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-01-2011 Ksn