APHC010097462006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Fourteenth Day of August Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1194 of 2006 Between: Bangaru Bayya Reddy & another ...Appellants And K.Aruna and another ...Respondents Counsel for the appellants: 1. MD. Saleem Counsel for the respondents: 1. T.V.Sri Devi 2. P.Harinath Gupta The Court made the following: 2 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1194 of 2006 Judgment: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the award and decree dated 18.04.2006 in O.P.No.401 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle. The appellants are the claimants and the respondents are the respondents before the claim Tribunal. 2. The claimants sought compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18 % p.a. for the death of their senior paternal uncle by name B.Peddi Reddy in a motor accident took place on 21.12.2003. The claim was dismissed on the ground that no person was examined to prove Ex.A.10, which is family member certificate said to have been issued by Mandal Revenue Inspector, Malakacheruvu, to establish that the claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased. 3. Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed contending that the Tribunal erroneously ignored the evidence under Exs.A.7 to A.10 and that the petitioners are entitled to compensation as they are legal heirs / legal representatives, being sons of the younger brother of the deceased. 4. The appeal against the respondent No.1 was dismissed for default on 27.06.2016. Despite the passage of long time, no steps have been taken to get the appeal restored against the respondent No.1 / owner of the offending vehicle. One last chance was given on 17.07.2025 by this Court to take proper steps to get appeal restored against the respondent No.1 and request was made. Even then, no such steps were taken. When the appeal against the respondent No.1 / owner is dismissed, no claim can be raised against the insurer independently of the liability of the insured / owner of the vehicle. 5. That apart, it is seen that Ex.A.7 is his house-hold supply card relating to the wife of the petitioner No.1. Ex.A.8 is the election identity card of the deceased. Ex.A.9 is the voter identity card of the petitioner No.1. Ex.A.10 is 3 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1194 of 2006 the family member certificate as stated above. None of the documents under Ex.A.7 to Ex.A.19 would establish the relationship of the deceased to the claimants to treat them as legal representatives of the deceased. Insofar as Ex.A.10 is concerned, the Tribunal righty held that the same cannot be relied on. 6. Under these circumstances, the findings of the Tribunal not require any interference. 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed against the respondent No.2 as well. No costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date : 14.08.2025 RSD 4 BSB, J M.A.C.M.A.No.1194 of 2006 44 The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 1194 of 2006 Date: 14.08.2025 RSD