THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.2677 of 2006 Date:19.02.2010 Between: The Executive Officer, Secunderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND A. Lingam and another. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.R.Koteswara Rao. Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. The Court made the following Order: - ORDER: In this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arising under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act), the appellant, who represents the Secunderabad Cantonment Board, questioned award dated 20.06.2006 in M.V.O.P.No.357 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The respondents are parents of master A. Pavan Kumar, who received a fatal hit from tanker bearing No.AP 10T 9225 belonging to the appellant. After the boy was shifted to the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, he succumbed to injuries. The respondents filed the above mentioned O.P. under Section 163-A of the Act. At the hearing, Sri K.R. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased boy and therefore, the respondents are not entitled to any compensation. This aspect was considered by the Tribunal and the same was rejected by it. The Tribunal found that the driver of the tanker used to take the tanker to the street, where the respondents reside and that he was familiar with the environment prevailing in the street, where the children play on the streets and at times they gather around and climb the tanker. The Tribunal reasoned that the driver, who was very much familiar with the place and the movement of children, ought to have been careful while reversing the vehicle and that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies to the facts of the case. Having carefully considered this reasoning of the Tribunal, I am of the view that the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the plea of the appellant that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the boy. No other point is argued. In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the award of the Tribunal and the M.A.C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 19th February, 2010 GHN