HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.79 of 2008 Date: 10-6-2011 Between Smt. Ushanamma and another … Appellants/Claimants and P.Sanjeeva Reddy and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.79 of 2008 Judgment: Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 07-8-2007 in O.P.No.732 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 3. The appellants herein are the claimants in O.P.No.732 of 2005. Before the tribunal below these petitioners adduced documentary evidence Exs.A-1 to A-10, but the tribunal failed to consider the same and dismissed the claim on the ground that the petitioners failed to prove that the offending vehicle in question was involved in the accident. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 4. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 5. Point:- O.P.No.732 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of one Chinna Ramulu in a motor accident involving the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor cum Trailer bearing Nos.AP22U-1412 and 1413. P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident as she is the wife of the deceased. P.W.2 is the alleged directed witness. Admittedly, his name is also noted in the charge- sheet Ex.A-5 by the Police. The tribunal below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2 on the ground that his evidence is inconsistent with many material contractions. Ex.A-1 First Information Report was registered on receipt of the information from the hospital authorities, where the deceased was earlier treated. After receipt of Ex.A-1 the investigation was started, wherein it was noted that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Tractor cum trailer involved in the accident. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the Investigating Officer examined 3 witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 and one Pedda Ramaiah and later held inquest over the body of the deceased. As per the evidence of P.W.2 whose name is mentioned in the charge-sheet, he clearly asserted that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor. Since the name of P.W.2 is noted in the charge-sheet as direct witness, his evidence before the tribunal below assumes any amount of importance while deciding the factum of accident. 7. According to P.W.2, the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending tractor. It is also evident that the Police held inquest over the body of the deceased and noted that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. Hence, in view of the documentary evidence and the ocular evidence of P.W.2, it is amply proved that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage as on the date of accident. Therefore, the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and accordingly, the finding of the tribunal below that the petitioner failed to establish the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is not sustainable. 9. Regarding the payment of compensation, the tribunal below at Issue No.2 placed reliance on a judgment in Syed Ibrahim v. Union of India and another [2003 (3) TAC 27 (A.P.)] and worked out the compensation payable to the claimants if they are able to prove that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, while taking into consideration the finding of the tribunal below in arriving at the amount of compensation, I see every justification in the finding of the tribunal below while arriving at the figure of compensation of Rs.1,97,000/- under all heads. Accordingly, the order of the tribunal below is set aside and an amount of Rs.1,97,000/- (Rupees one lakh and ninety seven thousand only) is granted towards compensation to the petitioners from the date of petition till the payment. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the tribunal below is set aside. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 10th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.79 of 2008 10th June, 2011.