THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2724 of 2008 DATE: 23-03-2011 Between: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant And Pusuluri Kalamma and 4 others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2724 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved against the order and decree dated 03.10.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1357 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam, the present Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. The appellant herein is the 2nd respondent in the Tribunal below. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the Court below ought to have taken cognizance of the fact that the police filed final report stating that it is a false case as it is evident from Ex.A-3 and that the Tribunal below ought not to have taken cognizance of evidence of P.W.2, who is said to be working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, since he is not the investigating officer as it is evident from the cross-examination of P.W.2, who categorically admitted that he did not do any investigation in this case except registering the case and forwarding the accused for remand and that he has no personal knowledge about the facts of the case. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-petitioners while supporting the order and decree of the Tribunal below submitted that the Tribunal below discussed the evidence in detail and came to correct conclusion while awarding compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the order and decree of the lower Court is sustainable? As seen from the record, the petitioners 1 to 4 are the legal representatives of the deceased by name Pusuluri Rangaiah, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 11.04.2002. The manner in which the accident occurred was not disputed. The main contention raised by the learned appellant counsel is that the accident was due to own negligence of the deceased and, therefore, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability while placing reliance on the police report Ex.A-3. In order to prove the accident, the claimants examined P.W.2 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-7. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the First Information Report, Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of remand report, Ex.A- 3 is the certified copy of final report and Ex.A-4 is the certified copy of post-mortem examination report. On perusal of Exs.A-1 and A-2, the police, in the first instance, registered the crime against the driver of the offending vehicle and after examining the witnesses concerned to the accident, having found prima-facie charged the driver of the offending vehicle and produced before the concerned Magistrate for remand. Ex.A-4 is the post mortem certificate, which reads that the deceased died due to head injury in the accident. Ex.A-3 is the final report, wherein the police after investigation held that the accident was due to the negligent driving of the deceased while he was in intoxication. The recitals in Exs.A-1 and A-2, the certified copies of First Information Report and remand report respectively, are contrary to the final report Ex.A-3. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the insurance company to prove Ex.A-3. P.W.2 admittedly is the police official, who registered the crime and did the investigation till the driver of the offending vehicle was produced before the Court. A perusal of the remand report reads that the witnesses at scene of offence and other material witnesses were examined. They deposed that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle but not the deceased. But strangely, the final report was filed by the police deviating the earlier investigation made by P.W.2. The changed circumstances for filing the final report in Ex.A-3 is not explained by the Investigating Officer and the final report Ex.A-3 is very vague without any details while coming to the conclusion that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. Moreover, a perusal of the impugned order, the Tribunal below placed reliance on Ex.A-4, post mortem examination certificate and held that the post mortem examination report does not speak that the stomach of the deceased contains any alcoholic substance. It only recorded that stomach contained only food and cause of death is due to head injury. Nothing can be found from the post mortem examination report Ex.A-4 that the deceased was in intoxication condition at the time of the accident and crucial documents Exs.A-1 and A-2 were prepared soon after the accident for investigation. Filing of final report Ex.A-3 is without any cogent proof, much less any changed circumstances and that too contra to the averments made in Exs.A-1 and A-2 as spoken to by P.W.2. So reliance can be placed on Ex.A-4 certified copy of post mortem examination report. The Court below well discussed the evidence on record and came to the correct conclusion while granting compensation to the claimants. Viewed from any angle in the totality of the circumstances, the finding of the Court below is sustainable. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed, while confirming the order and decree dated 03.10.2007 of the lower Court. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 23-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2724 of 2008 DATE: 23-03-2011 MR