THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. 4028 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 28.04.2003 in O.P.No.158 of 1997 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, the appellant-3rd respondent filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The appellant herein is the third respondent-Insurance Company in O.P.No.158 of 1997. One Gudise Samson Samuel (P.W.1) filed O.P.No.158 of 1997 claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident on 13.05.1996. The Tribunal below after considering the evidence on record, both oral and documentary evidence, awarded compensation amount of Rs.1,80,000/- to the petitioner/claimant. Having aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal below, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed mainly urging that the order of the Tribunal below is erroneous and that the Tribunal below ought not to have granted compensation to the petitioner as the petitioner falsely implicated the alleged offending vehicle in question, after due deliberations with active connivance of L.W.4 (G.Pullarao- R.W.2). Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal below is sustainable. The petitioner in proof of the accident and injuries sustained by him, examined himself as P.W.1 and examined P.W.2 Dr. Prasanna Sinha and filed Exs.A.1 to A.10. To rebut the evidence of P.W.1, the respondents examined R.Ws 1 to 3 and filed Exs.B1 to B.3. Ex.A.1 is the First Information Report. Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Basing on the aforesaid documents, the Tribunal below fastened the liability against respondents 1 to 2 observing that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.ADU 7909 belonging to the second respondent and validly insured with Respondent No.3 on the date of the accident. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that on 13.05.1996 at about 8-00 p.m. while he was going on his motor bike, jeep bearing No.ADU 7909 came in his opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him as a result of which, he fell down and sustained grievous and simple injuries all over his body and he was immediately admitted in Government Hospital, Kothagudem, and from there to a S.C. Company Hospital, Kothagudem. The main contention of the appellant/3rd respondent is that Jeep bearing No.ADU 7909 was not involved in the accident and it is planted to claim compensation. As seen from Ex.A.1 the First Information Report, the alleged accident took place on 13.05.1996. The recitals therein reads that an unidentified four wheeler vehicle caused the accident. Ex.A.3 is the charge sheet, which reads that on 11.10.1996, the Investigating Officer received a letter from L.W.4 by name Pulla Rao informing that on the night of offence while he was travelling in Jeep No.7909 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused the accident resulting in the petitioner sustaining injuries. The recitals in the charge sheet reads after coming to know about the crime as per the evidence given by the said Pullarao on the aforesaid letter the police had taken steps and arrested the accused on 06.11.1996. The alleged letter sent by Pulla Rao is not marked by the police and it has not seen the light of the day so far. If really the police received the letter from Pulla Rao certainly, there is a G.D. entry to that effect and the same is not placed in the charge sheet as evidence as per the memo of evidence noted in the charge sheet. Absence of the said material document, the evidence of L.W.4 i.e., Pulla Rao alleged to have send the said letter to the police in turn registering the crime by police is only myth or illusory, without any substantial proof. Ex.A.3 is the wound certificate. A.4 is the discharge card dated 24.07.1996. Ex.A.5 is also another discharge card dated 20.01.1997. It is not the case as if the injured himself furnished the offending vehicle particulars to police. It is the third party i.e., Pulla Rao, who addressed a letter to the police about the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. If really, Pulla Rao was present in the offending vehicle on the date of the accident, he would have informed the same to the police nor raised any objection for not reporting the matter to the police by the driver of the offending jeep. Having kept quiet all through for the reasons best known to him he alleged to have sent a letter to the police that too against the driver of the offending vehicle. As seen from the evidence of Pulla Rao, who is examined as R.W.2, he clearly admitted that he does not know the name of the injured. If that be the case, what prompted Pulla Rao to write the letter to the police involving the offending vehicle, in question. He is neither an injured nor an aggrieved party. In any manner, admittedly, he is a stranger to P.W.1. If that be the case, introducing the theory of sending a report by Pulla Rao to the police much less with the delay of three months involving the offending vehicle in the interest of the petitioner speaks volumes. The reason is obvious. In the background of the matter, the alleged letter addressed by Pulla Rao to the Police, prompting the police for registering the crime against the driver of the offending jeep is very much doubtful. Therefore, viewed from any angle, registering of Ex.A.1, as a case of hit and run, the subsequent story of introducing the offending vehicle is only an after thought for the reasons best known to the concerned. Therefore, absolutely, I see no bona fides in the contention of the petitioner about the involvement of the offending vehicle, in question. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal below on that score is not sustainable. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/3rd respondent reported that 50% of the awarded amount was deposited and the same was permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner/claimant. In view of allowing the C.M.A., the Insurance Company can resort to recover the amount parted by them under due process of law. ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 01st April 2011 bud