HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1527 OF 1995 JUDGMENT: Respondents 1 to 6 herein filed O.P. No.37 of 1977 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Mahaboobnagar, claiming compensation on account of death of Mir Abid Ali Zakir. It was stated that on 23-09-1977, said Mir Abid Ali Zakir and certain others were traveling in a car bearing No.AAY – 7930 on the National HighwayNo.7 being driven by the appellant herein and, that on account of the negligence on the part of the appellant, the car dashed against a stationed lorry. As a result, Ali Zakir died and inmates of the car, including the appellant received injuries. Crime No.32/1977 was registered by the Station House Officer, R.S. Kothakota. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed as compensation. 2. The O.P. was contested by the appellant. It was pleaded that he is neither driver nor owner of the car and that he was traveling in it. The fact that the deceased was traveling in the car and died on account of the accident was admitted. The facts pleaded by the respondents 1 to 6 about the income and age of the deceased were disputed. At one stage, the OP was allowed and the appellant herein carried the matter in appeal. It was remanded and after remand, the Tribunal passed an order, dated 31-07-1995, awarding a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation with interest at 6%. Hence, this appeal. 2. Heard Sri P.Gangaiah Naidu, learned for the appellant and Sri A.M. Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 6, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, RWs-1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were filed. 4. The occurrence of the accident and death of the deceased therein is not disputed. The whole controversy is as to whether the appellant herein was the owner of the car and was driving it at the time of accident. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the FIR in Crime No.32 of 1977. Ex.A-3 is the charge was filed therein. In both the documents, it was mentioned that the appellant was driving the vehicle when the accident was occurred. It may be true that the appellant was acquitted in CC No.109 of 1977. However, the acquittal by itself does not give rise to a finding that the appellant was not driving the car at all. Though an attempt was made by the appellant herein to state that it was the deceased that was driving the vehicle, that plea was not established. The finding recorded by the trial Court as to the negligence on the part of the appellant and cause of the accident, does not warrant interference. Sofaras the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into account the salary, which the deceased was drawing and correct multiplier was applied. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J December 16, 2011. KTL