HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MA C.M.A.No. 2117 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the dismissal order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Warangal in MVOP No. 576 of 1998 dated 10.1.2002 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Brief facts of the case are that on 13.5.1998 the owner of the Car being No. AP 16 H 5568 permitted one E. Mahadev @ Raju, to take the car on his personal work. He along with his two friends went to Unikicherla Village and after completion of their work while returning when the car reached near Railway Gate, Waddepally Kometipally Shivar, one Mini Lorry bearing No. AP16 T 9444 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed hit on back side of the car, due to which, the car was damaged and the persons traveling in the said car also sustained injures. The appellant shifted the damaged car to a garage and the licensed surveyor estimated the damage and expenditure and issued a certificate to a tune of Rs. 60,254/-. It is stated that the appellant engaged another car on the monthly rent of Rs. 7,500/- for two months and in the absence of car and its damage, the appellant sustained a loss of Rs. 25,000/- and in all, the appellant claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The first respondent was set ex parte, who is the owner of the Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 6444 and who appointed the driver and permitted him to drive the same and the said lorry was insured with the Insurance Company and the policy is in force as on the date of accident. The second respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim of the appellant stating that he was not aware of the alleged accident, which took place on 13.5.1998 and denied the nature and extent of the damages alleged by the appellant and she is required to prove the damages sustained to the car, and the appellant failed to furnish the original policy of the Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 9444 and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Mini Lorry bearing No. AP16 T 9444 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of the respondents RW-1 was examined and Exs B1 to B3 were marked. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the evidence held that there is no clinching evidence to prove that the accident had occurred as alleged by the appellant in the claim petition and in the absence of any material, the Tribunal has not accepted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Mini Lorry bearing No. AP 16 T 9444 by its driver and did not accept the story of the appellant that her car was damaged in the accident and accordingly dismissed the OP. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and also perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the record, the accident had occurred on 13.5.1998 and the appellant given her car to one E. Mahadev @ Raju and he along with his two friends went to Unikicherla Village and in return trip one Mini Lorry bearing no. AP 16 T 9444 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed hit on the back side of the car and due to hit, the engine was completely damaged and the persons traveling in the said car also sustained injuries. But the Tribunal dismissed the OP stating that in the absence of material it is not in a position to accept the case of the appellant that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the mini lorry. On behalf of the second respondent RW-1 was examined and he deposed that the vehicle bearing No. AP 16 T 9444 was insured with their company for a period from 23.7.1997 to 22.7.1998 and the policy was a comprehensive policy, which covers the risk of third party and damages of the insured vehicle unlimited. Hence, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted for adducing further evidence as to whether the accident occurred or not and whether the car is damaged in the accident or not. The Tribunal is directed to complete the exercise within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and determine the compensation. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 01.07.2010 KA