THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.ANo.181 of 2008 Being aggrieved by the Order dated 01.05.2007 in O.P.No.601 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – VI Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the tribunal erred in disallowing the entire claim even on the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are insured and insurer of the Jeep on which the deceased was proceeding as driver and died during the course of employment and the tribunal below ought to have considered that the claim being filed under beneficial legislation and the interest of the workmen required to protected irrespective of the wrong provision of law mentioned in the claim petition and claim cannot be dismissed. 3. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the insurance company urged that the deceased while driving the Jeep as its owner met with an accident and the police not filed the charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus, against which the deceased dashed its Jeep and therefore non filing of the charge sheet against the driver of the RTC bus clearly revealed that the deceased was at fault and therefore no amount of compensation is awarded. 4. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the petitioners are entitled for any enhancement of compensation amount and the findings of the lower Court is sustainable? P O I N T: 5. O.P.601 of 2001 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Vallepu Siva Ramulu. The claim before the lower Court is for Rs.2,00,000/- and the petition is filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The wife of the deceased, who was travelling along with the deceased at the time of the accident examined as P.W.1 and she filed Exs.A.1 to A.5. P.W.2 another eyewitness was examined. A perusal of the documents filed by the petitioners, petitioners did not file the charge sheet. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report lodged by one K.Narender, an injured and eyewitness to the accident. The said Narender was not examined. The inquest report Ex.A.2 reads that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself. Ex.A.4 is the Xerox copy of the insurance policy relating to the offending vehicle in question and it shows that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage on the date of the accident. The lower Court while discussing the evidence on record, in particular the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the accident was due to the sole negligence of the deceased himself but not due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC Bus. The evaluation of the evidence by the lower Court on that score, in my view, is quite just and reasonable and needs no interference. 6. When the petition is filed claiming compensation against the driver of the offending vehicle, the burden lies on the claimants to prove that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In the present case on hand, the deceased himself was responsible for the accident, but not the driver of the bus, against whom the present claim is filed. Since there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC bus, against whom the present claim is made and that the accident was due to negligent driving of the deceased himself and same is the police investigation, in my view, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation against the respondents and the petitioners can resort to their remedies in any other forum, if they are otherwise entitled. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 22nd March, 2011 KSP