HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.3154 of 2000 Between: P.Sarangapani Appellant And P.Raju and another Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.3154 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.414 of 1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Warangal, on 20-10-1999. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant working as Police Constable in the Central Crime Station, Warangal, complained that on 12-03-1997 at about 7 p.m. when he was proceeding on his bicycle, near Vivekananda College, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, a Hero Honda Motor cycle No.AP-36-D-4145, driven in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, and caused injuries all over his body. The appellant claimed to have been shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal, for treatment and he has given a complaint to the police on 13-03-1997, which was registered by Intezargunj police and investigated into. He filed the claim petition for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- claiming Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the hospitalization and to have spent Rs.15,000/- towards medicines. He also claimed Rs.14,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards permanent disability. 3. The 1st respondent, owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. 4. The insurer denied the involvement of the subject vehicle in the accident and also claimed that notice of the accident was not given to the insurer. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by the insurer. 5. On the rival contentions of the parties in the pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues on the manner of the accident and the quantum of compensation and during the enquiry, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. The insurer did not produce any evidence. 6. The Tribunal rendered the award noting that P.W.1 did not state any-where about the registration number of the Hero Honda motor cycle and while the accident occurred on 12-03-1997, it was only on 14-03-1997 that P.W.1 was admitted in hospital. The documents filed by the petitioner were not corroborating the claims of P.W.1 about the manner of sustaining injuries. The claim of P.W.1 that he was treated on the same day was noted to have been contradicted by the documents. The Police Report was also noted to have been registered only after 25 hours and P.W.1, the police constable, could not have claimed ignorance about the legal requirements and the necessity to lodge a report promptly. The Tribunal further observed that the name of the accused who was allegedly driving the vehicle was stated in Ex.A-2 as P.Sivaram Murthy, but the owner of the vehicle impleaded as 1st respondent is different. The Tribunal also noted that the name of the driver was not disclosed even in the claim petition and the Tribunal further observed that the petitioner also did not examine any eyewitness to the accident and did not produce any medial evidence. In the light of these discrepancies, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that the motor cycle in question dashed and injured him and consequently dismissed the claim petition without costs. 7. The petitioner challenged the said award in this appeal claiming that he was treated at M.G.M. Hospital as shown in Exs.A-1 to A-4. The Tribunal could have observed that he was injured in the accident in question by the subject motor cycle owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The delay in the FIR alone cannot be a ground for rejection of the claim. 8. Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the appellant is heard. 9. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to any compensation on the strength of any accident involving the motor cycle of the 1st respondent insured with the 2nd respondent. 10. The petitioner/appellant examined only himself and did not produce any other corroborating evidence for his claims. Exs. A-3 and A-4 as well as Ex.A-8 medical bills are not corroborated by examining either the doctor who treated P.W.1 in the hospital or any other person connected with the admission of the petitioner in the hospital and his treatment therein. The result of the charge sheet filed in Crime No.55 of 1997 under Ex.A-2 is not known and as rightly noted by the Tribunal, the delay of 25 hours in giving report to the police and the further delay in P.W.1 being admitted in the hospital are not explained. The discrepancies and improbabilities noted in detail by the Tribunal, which need no repetition, are insurmountable and cannot be said to be in significant discrepancies. Improvements relating to the material particulars of the accident in the evidence of P.W.1 are not open to acceptance at face value, when it was not corroborated by any other evidence. 11. Therefore, the claim was rightly rejected by the Tribunal and the award in pursuance thereof cannot be considered as unreasonable and the said award cannot be interfered with in this appeal. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ 2nd August 2010 KVR