THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.289 OF 2000 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short “the Tribunal) in MVOP No.172 of 1992, dated 18-11-1998. 2. Originally, the first petitioner-injured filed O.P.172 of 1992. During the pendency of hearing, he died and his legal representatives were impleaded. 3. The case of the petitioners is that on 18-03-1992 at about 12 Noon, a mini lorry bearing No.AP-7V-2077 driven by its driver came in a high speed, rashly and negligently, and dashed against the first petitioner/clamant from his behind and due to which, he sustained injuries and claimed compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 4. During the course of trial the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the mini lorry, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-the Insurance Company filed counter denying the allegations in the petition. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- 1. Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry bearing No.AP-7V-2077? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined and no documentary evidence was placed. 7. On the basis of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P holding that that there is no evidence to prove the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry, as no eye- witnesses were examined and that the first petitioner-complainant died subsequently. Aggrieved by the above finding, the present appeal is filed. 8. No doubt, there is no evidence to prove the oral evidence of negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle but the contents of FIR show that the driver of the offending vehicle was negligent in driving the vehicle and moreover, there is no dispute about the accident. When there is no dispute about the accident, the Insurance Company is liable and there is no justification in dismissing the O.P holding that there is no evidence to prove negligence. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation. 9. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, Ex.A-3 (Medical Certificate) shows that the first petitioner (deceased) suffered fracture on his foot and there was crush injury exposing bones and there were multiple fractures that must have caused substantial pain and inconvenience affecting future earnings of the injured but unfortunately the injured did not live long after the accident. The first claimant suffered pain and some amount was incurred towards treatment. Considering the above circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the children of the first petitioner i.e., 2nd and 3rd petitioners are entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 10. Accordingly the CMA is allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the appellants/claimants with interest at 7.5% per annum against both the respondents in the O.P from the date of petition till realisation. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J 5TH July, 2010 TSNR