The appellants were travelling in an autorickshaw, the driver of which was the second respondent. The allegation is that due to the rashness and negligence of the second respondent the vehicle overturned causing injuries to the appellants. The vehicle had been insured with the third respondent. The Tribunal found that though an accident took place, the allegation that it was due to rashness or negligence of the second respondent is false and so it rejected the claim of the appellants. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
3. The second respondent was the driver of the autorickshaw at the relevant time. He is none other than the husband of the appellant in M.A.C.A.2624/2012 and the father of the appellant in M.A.C.A.196/2014. He filed Ext.B1 O.P.(M.V.) under Section 163A of the M.V. Act and obtained an award in his favour. The allegation in it was M.A.C.A. Nos.2624/2012 & 196/2014
-2-
that the accident happened when an unknown vehicle hit his autorickshaw. The Tribunal found that the appellants' version that the accident was due to the negligence of the second respondent is false. There is no doubt that these are collusive proceedings and are a fraud upon the court. Under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, it is necessary to prove negligence, failing which, the claimants are not entitled to compensation. The learned counsel for the appellants relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2001 (1) KLT 408 (SC)]. It is not applicable to the facts of the case. The Tribunal was right in finding that the appellants are not entitled to compensation.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed.
Sd/-
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE //True copy// P.A. TO JUDGE shg/