THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1353 of 2007 and 1506 of 2011 And XOBJSR.No.35213 OF 2007 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Cross Objections arise out of a common order, dated 24.04.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam in M.V.O.P.Nos.45 and 127 of 2000. Respondents 1 to 6 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1353 of 2007 filed M.V.O.P.No.45 of 2000. They pleaded that on 19.04.1999, Chodagam Veera Venkata Nancharaiah, husband of the 1st respondent, father of respondents 2 to 4 and son of respondents 5 and 6, along with the first respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1506 of 2011 by name Angara Narayanarao proceeded on a motor cycle bearing No.AP-16J-1201 to Vijayawada to send off their friend Pothana Krishna and in return journey, when they reached Proddutur cross roads near Kankipadu at about 1:30 am, a lorry bearing No.AP-16V-4666 driven by the 7th respondent and owned by the 8th respondent and insured with the appellant came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. Veera Venkata Nancharaiah was being shifted to University General Hopsital, Vijayawada with multiple injuries and on the way he died. P.S.Kankipadu registered Crime No.51 of 1999 against the driver. They stated that the deceased was a cycle stand contractor and was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and that he was aged 35 years when he died. They claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation. The 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1506 of 2011 filed MV.O.P.No.127 of 2000 before the same Forum claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injures suffered by him. Apart from the details about the accident, he has also furnished the nature of treatment undergone by him and the particulars of claim. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to respondents 1 to 6 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1353 of 2007 and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1506 of 2011. The appellant challenges the order passed by the Tribunal on several grounds. It is urged that lorry bearing No.AP-16V-4666 was not at all involved in the accident and that the particulars were furnished only as an after thought in collusion with the claimants. Respondents 1 to 6 in M.A.C.M.A.No.1353 of 2007 filed cross objections. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants. There is no representation for the driver and the owner of the lorry. In fact, they remained ex parte before the Tribunal also. The principal ground urged on behalf of the appellant is about the very involvement of the lorry in the accident. The accident occurred in the mid night intervening 19th and 20th of April 1999 at about 1:30 am. One does not expect nay eye- witnesses. As a matter of fact, the plea of the claimants was that the lorry went away after the accident. The police registered a case and it is only after thorough investigation that the particulars of the vehicle that was involved in the accident were furnished. On its part, the appellant did not adduce any oral evidence to dispute the version of the claimants. In case, it doubted the involvement of the vehicle, the best person to speak about was the driver and the owner of the vehicle, who were very much parties to the proceedings. No effort was made to examine them. The burden in this regard rested squarely upon the appellant, since it would be mulcted with the liability in the absence of any evidence. The claimants placed before the Tribunal, a copy of the F.I.R. in Crime No.51 of 1999, post mortem report, inquest report, Motor Vehicle Inspector Report, wound certificate etc. Those documents are sufficient to establish the involvement of the vehicle. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 7th respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1353 of 2007 does not warrant interference. So far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal has taken into account the age and earnings of the deceased and has applied the correct multiplier. So is the case with the award of compensation to the injured person viz., the 1st respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.1506 of 2011. Neither the appellant nor the claimants are able to point out any serious defect in the determination of compensation by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeals as well as the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) Date: 21.11.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1353 of 2007 and 1506 of 2011 And XOBJSR.No.35213 OF 2007 Date: 21.11.2011 JSU