HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2099 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the petitioner in O.P.No.246 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, questioning the dismissal of the claim of the petitioner for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 03.12.1998 at about 8.00 P.M., when the petitioner was proceeding on a cycle from Seetharampuram to Mittagudem and reached near Jaggaram village, the lorry bearing No.ATK 1579 driven by the 1st respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and spent money for treatment. The 1st respondent is driver and 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed a counter, denying the incident and nature of the injuries received by the petitioner and also the nature of treatment claimed by the petitioner and also the liability. Additional counter was also filed contending that the name of the petitioner was not found in the First Information Report and the petitioner did not receive the injuries in the motor accident as claimed and therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. After considering the material on record, the lower Tribunal found that the claim of the petitioner about the nature of the incident is not proved and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the mere fact that the name of the appellant was not mentioned in the First Information Report is not a ground to dismiss the claim. According to him, the lorry bearing No.ATK 1579 has first dashed against the claimant and thereafter dashed against one Upender after proceeding to a distance and as such, the dismissal of the application is not proper. The lower Tribunal found that the petitioner has not examined any other person about the nature of the incident. The petition does not show about the cause of the accident. If really the same lorry has hit the petitioner and another Upendar at the same time, then that fact would have been easily known and the petitioner also would have been there at the scene of incident. Further-more if really the petitioner has sustained injuries as claimed by him, he would have been at the scene of incident and if it has hit him later or earlier, he would have contacted Upendar and both of them would have gone to the hospital or police Station and lodged the complaint. The distance between the places of incident in the two accidents is said to be more than one furlong. The lower Tribunal after perusing the material on record has not inclined to accept the claim. There is also said to be a delay in going to the hospital in spite of the fact that there are injuries on the person of the petitioner. Ignoring the fact that Upender has lodged the complaint, if really the petitioner has received injuries in a motor accident, he himself would have lodged the complaint with the police. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances and there being no other independence evidence to support the claim of the petitioner, I feel that the order of the lower Tribunal in dismissing the claim cannot be faulted and there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:20.09.2011 INL