HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.196 of 2008 Date: 17-6-2011 Between Chadalavada Srinivasa Rao … Appellant/Petitioner and Shaik Bikku and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.196 of 2008 Judgment: Having been aggrieved by the order and decree dated 24-9-2007 in M.V.O.P.No.803 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal cum District Judge, Guntur the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No.803 of 2005. The claimant filed petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rules 455 and 476 of the A.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26-4- 2005. The tribunal below while considering the material on record dismissed the petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the accident in question was due to the fault of the 1st respondent’s lorry driver and he is not entitled to claim compensation against the respondents 1 and 2. 3. Being aggrieved with the said finding, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner mainly urging that the tribunal below ought to have granted compensation under ‘no fault’ liability as per Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for which the appellant is legally entitled to. 4. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the order of the tribunal below is sustainable ? 5. Point:- As per the version of the claimant that on 26-4-2005 at about 8.30 p.m., while he was going on his motorcycle from Vadlamudi to Tenali, near Angalakuduru Ice Factory of Tenali to Narakoduru road, the lorry of the 1st respondent bearing No.AP16U- 3208 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed his motorcycle, resulting injuries to him all over the body and he was shifted to Dr. M.G.Naidu Hospital, Vijayawada, where he was given treatment. 6. To prove the fact that he sustained injuries in the accident, the petitioner got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A-1 First Information Report, Ex.A-2 charge-sheet, Ex.A-3 Wound Certificate and Ex.A-3 discharge summary. It is the evidence that on 26-4-2005 at about 8.30 p.m., while he was going on his motorcycle from Vadlamudi to Tenali, near Angalakuduru Ice Factory, the lorry of the 1st respondent bearing No.AP16U-3208 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit his motorcycle resulting injuries to his left leg, left hand fingers and other parts of the body and he was shifted to his house by one Dasari Venkata Rao, who had seen the accident and informed him the lorry number, from there to Dr. M.J.Naidu Hospital, Vijayawada, where he underwent treatment. 7. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company denied the accident. As seen from the record, Ex.A-1 First Information Report was registered on 02-5-2005, whereas the alleged accident took place on 26-4-2005 at about 8.30 p.m. But for the reasons best known to P.W.1, he did not reveal the same to the Police till 02-5-2005. As per Ex.A-1 First Information Report, one Dasari Venkateswara Rao was also coming behind him on his motorcycle and he witnessed the incident and brought him to his house at Tenali but no report was lodged by the said Dasari Venkateswara Rao also. Admittedly, the alleged accident was occurred at Tenali and from there, the injured was taken to his house at Tenali. Thereafter, he was shifted to Dr. M.J.Naidu Hospital, Vijayawada. Admittedly, all through the injured was in conscious state. If that be the case, non-issuing of any report before the Police till 2005 doubts the veracity of Ex.A-1, which was lodged with the delay of one week. 8. The case of the 2nd respondent is that the 1st respondent colluded with the petitioner and remained ex parte with a view to defraud the Insurance Company. 9. Therefore, in view of the observations supra, the unexplained delay in lodging the report after the accident renders the version of the petitioner highly doubtful and Ex.A-1 shall be viewed with suspicion. 10. Though the learned counsel for the appellant urged that this Court can award compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under ‘no fault’ liability, in view of the doubtful testimony of P.W.1 regarding the alleged incident as per delayed Ex.A- 1 First Information Report, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be swallowed by any stretch of imagination. 11. Therefore, as there is no evidence to show that the accident occurred in the manner alleged by the petitioner, the only remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the Government through the District Collector, Guntur for compensation, as rightly held by the tribunal below. 12. Viewed from any angle in the totality of the circumstances and the evidence on record, absolutely I see no merits in the appeal. 13. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 17th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.196 of 2008 (P.D. Judgment) 17th June, 2011.