JUDGMENT : B.S. BHANUMATHI, J. 1. M.A.C.M.A.No.3284 of 2005 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2005, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Kurnool, in O.P.No.31 of 2003. 2. M.A.C.M.A.No.3495 of 2005 is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2005, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, at Kurnool, in O.P.No.32 of 2003. 3. The appellant in both these appeals is the 2 nd respondent before the Tribunal: a. The 1 st respondent in these appeals is the owner of the Tractor and Trailer bearing No.AP-21H-1224 & AP-21-U-2842 and respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. b. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 in M.A.C.M.A.No.3284 of 2005 are the claimants in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2003 whereas the 2 nd respondent in M.A.C.M.A.No.3495 of 2005 is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2003. c. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against P.Venkatapathi, respondent No.3 before the Tribunal, and therefore, he was shown as not a necessary party to these appeals. 4. The facts stated in the claim petition are briefly as follows:- The claimants in M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2003 are the legal representatives of the deceased, Mala Chidananda @ Siva. On 19.04.2002, Mala Chidananda along with Jayamma (deceased in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2003) and R.Basha (injured petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2003) was travelling in a tractor trailer bearing Nos.AP-21-H-1224 and AP-21-U-2842 for the purpose of unloading the stones at the factory of the respondent No.1. They were coolies working under the respondent No.1. At about 6 p.m., on 19.04.2002, as the driver of the tractor trailer drove it in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, the tractor trailer went off the road and turned turtle. The load of stones fell on them. Mala Chidananda and Jayamma died and R.Basha sustained fracture injuries besides simple injuries. Mala Chidananda was aged about 34 years and earning Rs.100/- per day as hamali. Jayamma was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs.80/- per day as a coolie worker. 5. The claims were opposed by the respondent No.2. The respondents Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte. 6. Mala Chidananda was aged about 34 years and earning Rs.100/- per day as hamali. Jayamma was aged about 21 years and was earning Rs.80/- per day as a coolie worker. 5. The claims were opposed by the respondent No.2. The respondents Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte. 6. The respondent No.2 filed a counter denying the material allegation and further contending that the accident did not occur due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle and that the deceased and some other persons were proceeding in the tractor belonging to Mallu Bala Rami Reddy as per the contents of the F.I.R. and the number of the tractor was not mentioned in the complaint and that Mallu Balarami Reddy had not insured any vehicle with the respondent No.2 and so, he planted the tractor trailer bearing No. AP-21-H-1224 and AP-21-U-2842 of his brother, Mallu Ram Mohan Reddy. As such, the respondent No.2 disowned its liability. Further, it is contended that the driver of such vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and that the vehicle had no valid permit and was not in a road worthy condition to ply and moreover, the tractor bearing No. AP-21-U-2842 was insured to transport the goods and not the passengers. 7. On behalf of the claimants, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and exhibits A1 to A9 and X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, RW1 was examined and exhibit B1 was marked. 8. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R in Crime No.40 of 2002 of Owk Police Station Owk; Ex.A2 is the certified copy of the inquest report; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A4 is the certified copy of post-mortem certificate of Mala Chidananda @ Siva; Ex.A5 is the certified copy of M.V. Inspector’s report; Ex.A6 is the certified copy of wound certificate of R.Basha, petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2003; Ex.A7 is the O.P. Ticket of PW2-R.Basha; Ex.A8 is the certified copy of inquest report in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2003; Ex.A9 is the certified copy of post-mortem report on the body of deceased, Jayamma. Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy. Ex.B1 is the copy of insurance policy. Ex.X1 is the xerox copy of page No.568 and 569 in Multipurpose Household Survey book; Ex.X2 is the copy of B.Register (Form No.24) of Motor Vehicle Tractor bearing No.AP-21-H- 1224 and Ex.B3 is the copy of B. Register (Form No.24) of Motor Vehicle Trailer No.AP-21-H-2842. 9. In M.V.O.P.No.31 of 2003, after considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,34,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with joint and several liability to the claimants. Similarly, in M.V.O.P.No.32 of 2003, compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of deposit and costs were granted to the claimants payable by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 with joint and several liability. 10. Aggrieved by the awards and decrees in M.V.O.P.Nos.31 of 2003 and 32 of 2003, these appeals were filed mainly contending that the vehicles were implanted as contended in the defence before the Tribunal. Of course, the quantum of compensation was also challenged. There is no cross appeal regarding the quantum of compensation. 11. Insofar as the main contention regarding the involvement of the tractor and trailer bearing Nos.AP-21-H-1224 and AP-21-U-2842 is concerned, there is a serious dispute. Besides filing the copies of F.I.R., inquest report, charge sheet and M.V.I report, the S.I. of Police who filed the charge sheet was also examined as PW4 and M.V.I. was examined as PW5 to prove that Mallu Balarami Reddy had no vehicle, but it is only Mallu Ram Mohan Reddy who had vehicle. The claimants relying on the evidence of Panchayat Secretary of Ramapuram village examined as PW6 and also Senior Assistant from the Regional Transport Office, Nandyal, examined as PW7 and placed reliance on Exs.X1 to X3. The respondent No.2 examined its Senior Assistant as RW1. A copy of policy of insurance in relation to the tractor and trailer mentioned in the claim petition was marked as Ex.B1. 12. There is no dispute about the policy of insurance issued by the respondent No.2 in respect of these vehicles. What is seriously in dispute is involvement of the insured vehicles in the accident. 13. Multi-purpose household certificate is marked as Ex.X1. 12. There is no dispute about the policy of insurance issued by the respondent No.2 in respect of these vehicles. What is seriously in dispute is involvement of the insured vehicles in the accident. 13. Multi-purpose household certificate is marked as Ex.X1. It is pertinent to mention that this record was relied on to show that both the brothers were living in the joint family. It was issued for the period subsequent to the date of accident. Therefore, it does not serve any purpose in support of the claimants. When a F.I.R. was lodged, except stating that the vehicle belongs to a particular person, there was no reference to chasis number or even the registered number of the vehicle. Even a new vehicle before its registration bears a temporary registration number. It is only from the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector onwards; there is a specific mention about the subject mentioned vehicles by their numbers with reference to chassis numbers as well. The charge sheet does not indicate as to how the vehicles involved in the accident are identified with reference to the numbers mentioned in the charge sheet. The Motor Vehicles Inspector had not inspected the vehicle at the place of accident. On a subsequent day, he inspected the vehicle produced before him. There are no marks of accident indicated on the vehicle inspected by him, at least to connect these vehicles to the vehicles involved in the accident. Thereafter, the investigation went on by fixing these vehicles in the accident. The Tribunal has misread the evidence and came to a wrong conclusion that these vehicles were involved in the accident. Though the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a welfare legislation, the evidence regarding the involvement of a vehicle cannot be lightly examined so as only to benefit a claimant. The evidence establishing the involvement of these vehicles in the accident is missing. As such, the finding of the Tribunal fastening liability against the insurance company, i.e., the respondent No.2 / appellant herein is erroneous. Since the respondent No.1 has not challenged the award, it is up to him to bear the burden of compensating the claimants. But, insofar as the liability fastened on the respondent No.2 is concerned, it is absolutely incorrect and the same needs to be set aside in this appeal. 14. Since the respondent No.1 has not challenged the award, it is up to him to bear the burden of compensating the claimants. But, insofar as the liability fastened on the respondent No.2 is concerned, it is absolutely incorrect and the same needs to be set aside in this appeal. 14. The quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal does not appear to be on high side and the same does not require any interference. 15. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The award and decrees, dated 02.03.2005, passed in M.V.O.P.Nos.31 of 2003 and 32 of 2003 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, are set aside to the extent of fastening liability against the respondent No.2 therein, i.e. the appellant herein and dismissing the claim petitions to that extent. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant can be withdrawn by the appellant, if available in Court, or recovered by the appellant from the respondent No.1 by filing an execution petition without filing a suit, if the amount deposited by the appellant was withdrawn by the claimants. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.