HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A. No. 2697 of 2007 DATED: 21.10.2010 Between: The National Insurance Company Ltd. Appellant/R2 And Talari Ramanjaneyulu and five others Respondents JUDGMENT: This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.08.2007 made in O.P. No. 38 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hindupur, whereby an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded to the petitioners-claimants together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Petition. The brief set of events that led to the present proceedings are that on 24.02.2005 at 9.00 A.M., while the deceased - Boya Chandrasekhar was proceedings towards Pydati Z.P.H. School, a Tractor & a Trailor bearing No. AP02 V 4298 & 4299 respectively driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came at high speed from Ganapathipalli and when it reached the rear side of the deceased, he suddenly reversed the Tractor-Trailor and dashed against the deceased, consequently, the deceased received severe injuries and died on the spot. The deceased was a student and on account of his sudden death, the petitioners-claimants, being his parents, lost dependency and earnings of the deceased. Hence, the claimants filed O.P. No. 38 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed written statement inter alia denying all the allegations made in the O.P. and stated that the accident took place not due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailor, but due to negligence of the deceased only, and the driver of the Tractor-Trailor was holding neither valid driving licence nor valid R.C. or F.C., as such, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The 3rd respondent, who is one of the legal heirs of the 1st respondent-owner of the crime vehicle, also filed written statement denying all the averments made in the petition and further stated that the accident occurred due to negligence of the deceased only and the driver of the Tractor-Trailor has nothing to do with the deceased. The Tractor-Trailor is insured with the 2nd respondent and the insurance was in force at the time of accident, and the driver of the Tractor-Trailor has valid driving licence, as such, respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 5 are not liable to pay compensation. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (i) Whether the death of the deceased - Boya Chandrasekhar occurred in the road accident on 24.02.2005 on account of the Tractor-Tailor bearing No. AP02 V 4298 as alleged in the petition? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (iii) To what relief? To substantiate the claim of the petitioners-claimants, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were got marked on their behalf. RW1 was examined besides marking of Exs.B1 and B2 on behalf of the respondents. Taking into consideration the evidence and other material on record, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum and proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the same, the National Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. Respondent No.1, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, died and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are added as legal heirs of the 1st respondent. As could be seen from the record, when it is alleged that the driver of the Tractor-Trailor is not responsible for the accident, naturally, the burden shifts on respondent Nos.3 to 5, who are the legal representatives of the 1st respondent, to examine either the driver or the owner of the Tractor, but they did not choose to examine them to prove that there is no negligence on the part of the driver, as such, an adverse inference was drawn by the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor. Further, Ex.A4 – accident report, does not say that the accident occurred due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle. Therefore, it is established that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailor. That apart, the multiplier applied by the Tribunal in order to determine the compensation is appropriate. Further, even though it is contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, that the driver of the Tractor-Trailor does not possess valid licence, and the licence possessed by the driver of the crime vehicle is only learner’s linsence, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, it is to be observed that by the date of accident, as per Ex.B1 - the policy, was in force and it was valid. Therefore, the finding arrived at by the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent shall deposit the compensation amount awarded into Court first and thereafter, it is at liberty to realize the same from the assets of the 1st respondent in the hands of respondent Nos.3 to 5, in the opinion of this Court, seems justifiable. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the well-considered order dated 20.08.2007 impugned in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 21-10-2010 bcj