THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 2711 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 20.3.2003 in M.V.O.P.No. 713 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada, Krishna District, the present C.M.A. is filed on the following grounds: The order of the tribunal in dismissing the Petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-is erroneous and contrary to law. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 2.11.2000 near Vijaya Oil Mill, Nandigama on N.H. 9 road the deceased, who was working as watchman while proceeding on a cycle and when he reached near Vijaya Oil Mill, a bus bearing No. AP 16 W 5555 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the deceased, due to which the deceased fell down and died on the spot. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly urged that the learned tribunal without following the guidelines in the judgment reported in KISHAN LAL & OTHERS Vs. BHAROSI LAL & OTHERS[1] held against the appellant that he is not the adopted son of the deceased and that finding of the learned tribunal is erroneous. Now the point for consideration is whether the Appellant is able to prove that he is the adoptive son of the deceased and the Order of the Tribunal is sustainable? The O.P. is filed by the petitioner Gottipati Venkata Rao on the ground that he is the legal heir of the deceased Rama Rao. According to his evidence, the deceased is his adoptive father. To prove the alleged adoption he examined P.W.-2 Ex- Sarpanch of the village. The learned tribunal after evaluating the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the conclusion that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 does not repose any confidence to show that p.W.1 is the adopted son of the deceased, as he failed to prove the said adoption and also not filed any documentary proof to that effect. The tribunal in detail discussed the applicability of the decision reported in Kishan Lal’s case (1st cited supra) to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand in its 9th para of the judgment. A cursory reading of the said judgment, the adopted son can also claim the compensation provided that the adoption could be proved by leading evidence as per law. The evidence of P.W.2, Ex-Sarpanch, who admitted in his cross examination that there was an adoption deed executed by the deceased, but the same was not filed by the P.W.1. If really there was an adoption deed, certainly the parties of the said adoption deed could be examined. Even in the absence of such adoption deed, natural parents of the claimant would have been examined. Non-examination of the natural parents of the claimant and not producing the adoption deed is fatal to believe that the petitioner is the adoptive son of the deceased. As rightly observed by the learned tribunal, in the absence of any evidence to show that the petitioner is adoptive son of the deceased Rama Rao, it cannot be held that the petitioner is entitled for compensation. Viewed from any angle, the finding of the learned tribunal is sustainable. Hence, the C.M.A. is dismissed. ___________________ 4.3.2011 CHV [1] 2002 ACJ 1750