THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.644 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A., under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, “the Act”), is directed against the order, dated 31.01.2008, in M.V.O.P.No.341 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – First Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of R. Ragagopal (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the deceased’), in a motor accident, was allowed in part granting compensation of Rs.2,82,000/-. 2. The case of the claimants is as follows: The deceased was aged about 45 years and he was working as Cook and earning Rs.4,500/- per month by the date of his death. On 25.11.2005, in the early morning, the deceased started from his village to go to Girls I.T.I. Kadapa on his cycle to attend his regular duty. At about 05:30 AM, when he reached Vinayaka Temple, he got down the cycle and while offering prayers to God Vinayaka, in the mean time, respondent No.1’s lorry bearing No.AP04 – v – 3133 being driven by its driver came from Kurnool side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed without blowing horn and the plastic rope of the said lorry was loosened to a length and wrapped the legs of the deceased and he was dragged to some distance, as a result of which the deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa. After First Aid, the deceased was shifted to General Hospital, Tirupati, where the deceased succumbed to injuries on the same day at about 03:30 PM. Claimants spent about Rs.10,000/- towards medical treatment of the deceased and Rs.4,000/- for transportation. A case in Crime No.173 of 2005 was registered by Taluk Police against the driver of the offending lorry. The offending lorry was insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. Claimants are entitled to claim compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 being the owner and employer of the driver of the offending lorry is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and respondent No.2 has to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. 3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte to the proceedings. 4. Respondent No.2 filed written statement denying all the material averments in the petition and putting the claimants to strict proof that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month by working as a Cook. The compensation claimed by the claimants is high, excessive and baseless. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial: “1. Whether the death of the deceased R. Raja Gopal, S/o. Raja Gopal @ Gopal occurred in a motor vehicle accident on 25.11.2005 at 05:30 AM due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP04 – v – 3133? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 6. During trial, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were got marked, and on behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 7. Heard. 8. Now the point for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is correct, legal and proper? 9. The only ground taken in this appeal is that the offending lorry bearing No.AP04 – v – 3133 has not involved in the accident and therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants. To substantiate that the offending lorry involved in the accident, Ex.A1 – First Information Report and Ex.A2 – Charge Sheet were marked. Ex.A1 would go to show that the offending lorry involved in the accident. The evidence of PW.1 would go to show that the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. Police after completion of investigation filed charge sheet showing the involvement of the offending lorry in the accident. So, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the recitals in Exs.A1 and A2 would clearly go to show that the offending lorry has involved in the accident. As the appellant has taken a plea that the offending lorry has not involved in the accident, the burden is on the appellant to establish the same. No other evidence either oral or documentary is adduced on behalf of the appellant to show that the offending lorry was not involved in the accident. In the absence of any evidence and sufficient reasons to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled with the recitals in Exs.A1 and A2, the Tribunal rightly found that the offending lorry involved in the accident. The said finding needs no interference by this Court in view of the fact that the findings are based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J February 14, 2011 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.644 OF 2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .....APPELLANT AND Ramthu Naga Subbamma and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU M.A.C.M.A.No.644 OF 2011 February 14, 2011