THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1703 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed M.O.P.No.638 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation with interest thereon. It was stated that the appellant was working as a fitter in the South Eastern Railway, Simhachalam North, Visakhapatnam and that when he was proceeding in the mid night on 11.094.1992, in the Railway Station area together with his friend on a scooter bearing No.AAV 4556, the scooter was stopped by the rider by name Dharinesh and the appellant as a pillion rider was sitting on the scooter waiting for his friend; at that time, an auto rickshaw bearing No.AHV 3586 owned by the 2nd respondent insured with the 3rd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent dashed against him in the process of overtaking the bus. It was pleaded that the appellant received serious injuries all over his body in the accident and that he was treated in the South Eastern Railway Hospital, Visakhapatnam. The middle finger of the right hand is said to have been removed in the course of treatment and thereby he became permanently disabled. It was also stated that he was treated as inpatient for 17 days and thereafter as an outpatient for about two months. All the respondents contested the O.P. The 1st respondent stated that it was the appellant, who dashed against the auto rickshaw in a drunken condition and that in the criminal case that was instituted by the police, the appellant was convicted. The same plea was taken by respondents 2 and 3. Through its order, dated 25.06.1997, the Tribunal dismissed the M.O.P. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri N.Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Ramesh, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are not served yet. It is one of the rare cases, where the person against whom a case was registered for rash and negligent driving was convicted. Normally, it is the victims of such accident that claim compensation. Curiously in this case it was the appellant, who faced the prosecution and was convicted, and it is he who claimed compensation. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 deposed as witnesses and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were filed. Though no independent evidence was adduced by the respondents, a suggestion was made on behalf of the 1st respondent that the appellant was convicted in a case registered against him in relation to the said accident and that he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. The Tribunal took note of the same and dismissed the O.P. The appellant is not able to point out any defect in the order passed by the Tribunal. When the appellant was held to be responsible for causing the accident in a drunken condition, he cannot claim compensation against the victim. Therefore, the C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 08.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1703 of 2000 Date: 08.12.2011 JSU