SANASAPURI PEDDA SAMBAMURTHI1 Vs. K RAMA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam dated 25-6-1990 dismissing O.P.No.19 of 1988, which was filed under Section 110-A of the M.V. Act, 1939 (for short, the Act) seeking a compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the injuries and the disability suffered by the claimant/ appellant due to the accident on 29-6-1987 at 9.30 p.m. said to be due to the negligence of the 1st Respondent, is in challenge in this appeal. The O.P. was dismissed on the ground that the claimant failed to prove that it was the 1st Respondent who caused the accident and secondly for not proving the case to get the compensation, although assessed at Rs.15,000/- in view of the failure to prove the accident as against the 1st Respondent.

(2.) Smt. Renuka, the learned Counsel for the appellant has assailed the award on the ground that the appreciation of evidence by the Tribunal in regard to the proof of the 1st Respondent causing the accident in addition to his negligence, is not in accordance with the materials available on record and secondly against the materials demonstrating that respondents tried to avoid the involvement of the 1st Respondent in the consequences of the accident by manipulating the records the Tribunal accepted the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2, the driver and the official of the R.F.O's Office although conflicting and producing negative inferences.

(3.) Smt. Usha Kiran, the learned Government Pleader for Civil Supplies and Smt. Jhansi, the learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, have tried to persuade this Court about the correctness of the award based on material wherein the claimant did not take sufficient pains to prove the accident, in the first place, involvement of the jeep belonging to the 2nd Respondent in the accident and secondly regarding the 1st Respondent, being the driver driving the vehicle at the relevant time resulting in the accident. It is also argued by them that the amount of compensation assessed cannot be interfered with having due regard to the fact that sufficient reasons are given by the Tribunal.