HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3289 of 2011 Date: December 07, 2011 Between: 1. Battu Lingamma & 3 others … Appellants and 1. S. Venkateswar Rao & 5 others … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3289 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is ﬁled against the Award dated 04th June 2005 passed in M.V.O.P. No.278 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Khammam. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was ﬁled consequently on the death of the deceased B. Koteswara Rao in the motor accident. On 18.02.2000 while he was said to be travelling in the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP 20T 1373 and 1374 the lorry bearing No. AP 16W 4100 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor and caused the accident. The petitioners are wife and children of the deceased. The claim was made against the owner and insurance company of the tractor and also the insurance company of the lorry. 3. The insurance company ﬁled counter denying the liabilities and also the nature of accident and cause of death of the deceased. 4. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-4 has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. 5. The point for consideration is whether B. Koteswara Rao died in a motor accident and, if so, the petitioners are entitled for compensation as claimed? 6. Point: When the fact of cause of death of the deceased is disputed and when a claim for compensation is made, it is indisputable that the petitioners have to prove the above fact. Evidently the deceased is said to have died four months after the incident. P.W.1 is no other than the wife of the deceased and she could not conﬁrm about the incident. The lower Tribunal found that the charge sheet or the F.I.R. does not disclose that the deceased was also a person who travelled in the tractor and received injuries. The Tribunal has also found that there is no other evidence adduced to show that the deceased travelled in the tractor. Evidently, except marking the wound certiﬁcate it is not proved as to when and how the deceased received injuries. There is no evidence on record to show that the deceased took treatment for any of the injuries received in the motor accident. Though the death certiﬁcate Ex.A-4 is ﬁled, the cause of death is not clear and even after the death, the police were not informed, no post-mortem examination was conducted by the doctor and there is no opinion about the cause of death. 7. In view of the above circumstances, as the evidence on record does not prove the claim of the petitioners, the Tribunal has rightly rejected the petition and there is no other views possible. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J. Date: December 07, 2011. BSB