HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.494 of 2008 Date: 22-7-2011 Between Mohd. Mohammeda Begam … Appellant/Petitioner and Sangli Mallesh and another … Respondents/ Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.494 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31-12-2007 in O.P.No.400 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly urged that the tribunal below wrongly held that it has lack of jurisdiction, which is not sustainable and he further urged that dismissal of the O.P., without assigning any reasons is also erroneous. 3. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 4. Point:- The appellant-petitioner is the wife of the deceased Mahaboob. She filed the O.P., under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the death of her deceased husband in a road traffic accident that occurred on 10-5-2005. According to the averments in the O.P., the deceased was working as driver on the jeep bearing No.AP10U-9250 and that on 10-5-2005, as per the instructions of the 1st respondent-owner of the jeep, he went to Janagaon village in the capacity of driver along with a cleaner and while driving the jeep he suddenly applied brakes and lost control of the steering and hit a road side tree resulting, he died in the spot. 5. The 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle, was set ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter denying the allegations in the O.P., and further held that the First Information Report, charge-sheet and the statements of the witnesses show that the deceased was travelling as a passenger in the jeep and when the driver of the said jeep stopped the jeep at Gangapuram bus stage for taking meals. When the deceased tried to start the jeep, the cleaner of the jeep intervened and that the deceased beat him and took away the jeep, later the said jeep met with an accident. 7. In order to prove the accident, only P.W.1 wife of the deceased was examined. Admittedly, she is not a direct witness to the accident. Ex.A-1 is the copy of First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the copy of inquest report and Ex.A-3 is the copy of post- mortem examination report. A perusal of Exs.A-1 to A-3 shows that the accident was occurred due to the own negligent driving of the deceased himself. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 is of no consequence in proof of the accident. 8. However, to rebut the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 was examined. R.W.1 is a Senior Assistant in the Insurance Company. He admitted that Ex.B-1 policy was issued to the offending jeep and the policy covers the risk of 9 passengers including the driver and the accident was occurred due to the sheer negligence of the deceased. 9. The tribunal below while assessing the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself. Ex.A-1 complaint (FIR) dated 11-5-2005, which was lodged by one Fakeer Pasha reads that he stopped the jeep at Gangapuram stage for getting meals carriage. Meanwhile, the deceased himself took the jeep inspite of the objection raised by the cleaner and caused the accident. Ex.A-2 inquest report is also corroborating the contents in Ex.A-1 and the evidence of R.W.1. While considering the evidence on record the tribunal below correctly held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the deceased, who is not supposed to drive the vehicle. When the deceased is not supposed to drive the offending vehicle, as he was not given any consent by the driver of the vehicle or by its owner, it cannot be said that the deceased is an authorized person to drive the offending vehicle before causing the accident. 10. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the conduct of the deceased in taking the vehicle without any authorization and causing the accident in no way attracts the liability of the Insurance Company. The finding of the tribunal below while discussing the evidence on record on that score is quite just and reasonable. Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the tribunal below. 11. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order passed by the tribunal below. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 22nd July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.494 of 2008 22nd July, 2011. (Ak)