IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.634 of 2003 Between: Nageswari @ Nageswaramma (died) & Another. .. Appellants And K.C.Chacko & Another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant (since deceased during the pendency of the O.P.) against the orders in M.V.O.P.No.570 of 2000, dated 10.6.2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereunder the claim petition was dismissed. Nageswari @ Nageswaramma, a minor girl filed the O.P. claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by her in an accident that occurred on 26.3.2000. The case of the claimant was that she and others got down from a bus at 4.00 p.m. on the aforesaid date of accident at Chabolu Metta to go to Chabolu Village. A lorry bearing registration No.TN 04B 2221, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant due to which, she sustained injuries. She was treated in the Government Hospitals at Nandyal and Kurnool, and sustained permanent disability. She, therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for compensation. During the pendency of the O.P., the claimant died and her mother was impleaded as claimant No.2. The first respondent (owner of the vehicle) remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter and denied the allegations. The Tribunal formulated the issues; (1) whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the said lorry; and (2) whether the claimant was entitled for compensation?, and if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? The claimant No.2 examined herself as P.W.1 and one N. Rama Subbaiah was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 and A.2 were marked on her behalf. The Insurance Company did not examine any witness, but marked the insurance policy as Ex.B.1. Considering the evidence on record, disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2, who was an eyewitness to the accident, the Tribunal held that the lorry bearing registration No.TN 04B 2221 was not involved in the accident and the minor claimant sustained injuries in that accident only. On such finding, the Tribunal declined to award compensation and dismissed the petition. That is how, the appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that P.W.2 was the eyewitness to the incident whose evidence would clearly establish that the aforesaid lorry alone was involved in the accident. He would further contend that since the police also registered the complaint in Ex.A.1-F.I.R., there cannot be any doubt about the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the evidence adduced would not clinchingly establish the fact that the said vehicle was involved in the accident and the finding of the Tribunal on this issue is not liable to be interfered with. As noted above, claimant No.2, mother of the victim examined herself. But she was not an eye-witness to the incident. One N. Rama Subbaiah who is said to be an eye-witness was examined as PW-2. In his examination in chief he only deposed that the victim and others were going to Chabolu from Gajulapally village. After getting down the bus at Chabolu metta when they are preparing to go to Chabolu village a lorry came at high speed from behind and hit the victim. It is to be noted that in the examination in chief the witness did not indicate the Registration Number of the vehicle. He merely denied the suggestion that he was not present at the place of accident and the said lorry was not involved in the accident. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report in Crime No.33 of 2000. The said First Information Report was registered on 26-03-2000. It may further be noted that the First Information Report was registered on the complaint of Talari Pedda Pamuleti who is the father of the victim. Admittedly, he was not an eye-witness to the incident. According to the claimants the accident occurred at 4.00 P.M., on 26-03-2000. But the complaint was lodged at 9.00 P.M., on 26-03-2000. If really PW-2 N. Rama Subbaah was an eye-witness in the normal course of events he himself would have filed the complaint, but not the father of the claimant. On the contrary, as per the contents of the First Information Report, the father of the victim along with others was at the place of the accident. But neither PW-1 nor PW-2 confirmed this fact. If really PW-2 was present, the father of the victim would have mentioned atleast this fact in the First Information Report or atleast the father would have been examined as an eyewitness in the O.P. In the circumstances, it cannot be clinchingly said that the vehicle bearing No.TN 04B 2221 alone was involved in the accident. The finding by the Tribunal on this issue therefore, cannot be said to be incorrect. As a consequence of this finding the claimants are not entitled for compensation either under Section 166 or Section 140 of the Act. However, indisputably there was a motor accident and that the claimant sustained injuries in such accident. Therefore, from the evidence it could be said that the victim was injured in a hit and run accident and the claimants are entitled for compensation under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998. In order to claim compensation under the said provisions the claimants are required to make an application to the concerned authorities and the concerned authorities are empowered to grant compensation in such hit and run accident cases. The claimants are therefore, permitted to make such application within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such application being filed the concerned authority shall consider and grant compensation as per law within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the application. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred on 26- 03-2000 and that the O.P. was dismissed by orders dated 10-06- 2002, this appeal in continuation of the orders in said O.P. was pending since 2003, the application that may be filed by the claimants shall be entertained without taking objection with regard to the delay. The appeal is dismissed subject to the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J August 05, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.634 of 2003 August 05, 2010