THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 1340 of 2006. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Award dt. 9.03.2006 in O.P.No. 401 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderbad dismissing the said O.P. The petitioner before the Tribunal below is the appellant herein. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was aged about 30 years and earning a sum of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. by working as a labourer. On 24.8.2001 at about 12 noon, the petitioner along with his mother were going on his Scooter from Annampatla to Bhongir and when they reached near the petrol bunk at Ananatharam, a lorry bearing No. AP 28 U 2506 driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the scooter of the petitioner and consequently he fell down and sustained injuries to his hand feet, head and other parts of his body. For the injuries stained by him in the said accident, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1989 before the Tribunal below, claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- and later enhanced to Rs. 5,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company resisted the claim of the petitioner by fling a counter. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 28 U 2506? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed for, and if so from whom and to what extent? iii) To what relief. To prove his claim, the petitioner himself was examined as Pw.1 and also examined the doctor who treated him as Pw.2 and got marked Exs: A.1 to A.13. Ex:B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondents and Ex:X.1 was marked by the Court. The Tribunal below after appreciating the entire evidence adduced by both the parties though held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver but dismissed the claim petition holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the respondent No.1 is the owner of the lorry question and also failed to prove that the said vehicle was validly insured with the 2nd respondent also in view of the discrepancy of the number of the lorry mentioned in the FIR and in the charge sheet, by the Award impugned. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal below failed to appreciate that the FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence and the discrepancy with regard to the number of the lorry in the FIR and the charge sheet does not affect the case of the petitioner. He further contended that the Tribunal below ought to have drawn adverse inference against the insurance company for not filing the insurance policy instead of holding that the petitioner failed to prove that the 1st respondent is the owner of the lorry in question and that the said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent. In the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the appellant prayed to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Since there is no much resistance from the respondents and in view of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, the Award under appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal below for fresh consideration. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the claim petition in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 24.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 1340 of 2006. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 24.03.2011.