THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.3333 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimants aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2002 in M.V.O.P. No. 410 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Kakinada whereby and whereunder the claim of the claimants was rejected. 2. The appellants-claimants filed the said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the death of their father, who alleged to have been sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident. That on the date of accident i.e. 19.1.1997, in the early hours the first appellant was present at their coffee hotel along with his father. That while so, a lorry bearing A.P. 5T 6756 driven by first respondent at high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against one V.Subba Rao and thereafter dashed coffee hotel due to which the first appellant and his deceased father sustained injuries. His father was admitted in Government General Hospital, Kakinada. However, he expired on 15.8.1997 while undergoing treatment. That the deceased during his life time was earning Rs.200/- per day and maintaining his family consisting of his wife and two sons. 3. The respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the petition averments and its liability to pay any compensation to the appellants. 4. The first appellant who is eldest son of the deceased got himself examined as PW.1. He has reiterated the petition averments leading to injuries suffered by himself and his father in motor accident caused by respondent No.1-driver. That his father was treated for 10 days in a hospital. That later in the year 1998 his father was again admitted in the hospital and died. The witness appears to have wrongly stated the year 1998 instead of 1997. The claimants also relied on Exs.A1- FIR in Cr.No.11/97, Karapa P.S, Ex.A.2- wound certificate of PW.1, Ex.A.3- MVI report and Ex.A.4- death certificate. 5. After taking into consideration the entire material brought on record including the evidence of PW.1, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition stating that the deceased was aged 70 years; that there was no proof of his earnings and that PW.1 and that his brother aged about 45 and 43 years and they are not dependents on the deceased. The Tribunal also referred to the recitals in Ex.A1-FIR which indicates that the deceased himself was dependent on his sons. 6. The learned counsel for the appellants has reiterated the entire facts of the case contending that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition in view of the fact that the deceased died in hospital due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident and also in view of there being no rebuttal evidence from the side of the third respondent-insurance company. 7. On the other hand, it is the case of the third respondent-insurance company that the appeal is not maintainable against the insurance company since the appeal against R.2- owner of the vehicle was already dismissed for default; that it is settled law that when once claim dismissed against the owner who is vicariously liable for tortuous acts of his driver, there is nothing for insurer to indemnify; that the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellants, taking into consideration the entire material on record as well as the evidence of PW.1 observing that the deceased did not suffer or sustain any injury in the motor accident alleged to have been caused by respondent No.1-driver; that the claim made by the appellants was a false claim; that neither PW.1 nor his father owned coffee hotel and that one Surya Rao is owner of the hotel; that the Police complaint was preferred by one V.Subba Rao who is a third party; that PW.1 son of the deceased never complained of the accident or the injures suffered either by him or his father; that the Tribunal has rightly observed that the deceased was aged 70 years, PW.1 is aged 45 years and his brother is 43 years and that it is in the evidence of PW.1 that the deceased was dependent on himself and his brother. 8. In view of the evidence brought on record, the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both sides, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmities warranting interference from this court. 9. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. No costs. ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 24-06-2010 Stp