THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3422 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the award dated 25.10.2004 in O.P.No.374 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-Principal District Judge, Khammam. A claim for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Vemireddy Srinivasa Reddy in a motor accident, was made by his wife, children and parents. According to the claimants, the deceased was a driver of heavy vehicle and on the night of 28/29-05- 1996 when the deceased was going, he was hit by the mini van bearing No.AP-16-U-3049, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and consequently caused the death of the deceased. The 1st respondent is the driver, the 2nd respondent is the owner and the 3rd respondent is the insurance company, all of them are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. The claim against 1st respondent was dismissed, the 2nd respondent remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent filed counter denying the involvement of the van and also the nature of the incident and also the validity of the policy. The lower Tribunal, after considering the material on record, has found that there is no proof of involvement of the vehicle bearing No.AP- 36-U-3049 as claimed by the petitioners and consequently dismissed the claim. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of mini van bearing No.AP-16-U-3049 and if so whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation? POINT: The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration a mistake in the charge sheet about the mentioning of the vehicle No.AP-16-U-3649 instead of AP-16-U-3049 and this fact has been explained by R.W.1 investigating officer, who was examined on behalf of the respondents and was declared as hostile by the insurance company. It was also further pleaded that in fact AP-16-U- 3049 relates to the registration of mini van whereas AP-16-U-3649 relates to the registration of a tanker and the case was investigated by the police and made over by the petitioners is that the mini van was involved and, therefore, the dismissal of the application by the lower Tribunal is not correct. Therefore, in order to consider the claim of the petitioners assuming to be that the number mentioned in the charge sheet is incorrect by mistake, still it is for the petitioners to prove that the vehicle bearing No.AP-16-U-3049 was involved in the accident. In para 4 of the counter filed by the 3rd respondent a specific plea was taken disputing the involvement of the mini van bearing No.AP-16-U-3049, that fact would clearly go to show that the vehicle bearing No.AP-16-U-3049 would have been only planted for the purpose of claiming of the compensation. The complaint is said to have been given by the Village Administrative Officer K.Raghava Reddy, who is not an eye witness to the incident. The complaint is silent as to the identity of the vehicle. The complaint was lodged on 29.05.1996. It is the contention of the petitioners that the vehicle bearing No.AP-16-U-3049 was involved. Evidently, none of the petitioners are eye witnesses to the incident. The strong reliance is placed on the evidence of P.W.4, who is said to be the owner of the vehicle and the 2nd respondent claims that his vehicle was involved in the accident and he was informed subsequently by the driver but strangely he did not file any counter before the Court admitting the involvement of his vehicle in the incident. Therefore, his evidence that three months after the accident he was called by the police and he told the police that his evidence was involved in the accident driven by his driver and the police have taken all the records is apparently a falsity. It is to be noted that immediately P.W.4 has not given any complaint to the police and as can be seen from the charge sheet though the incident has happened on 28/29.05.1996, it is only in January, 1997 the driver of the vehicle is said to have surrendered and thereafter the particulars of the vehicle are identified. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, that the surrender of the driver being long after the incident, the evidence of P.W.4 that three months after the incident he was informed by his driver, appears to be improbable. The manner in which P.W.4 has given evidence is only appears to be an accommodative evidence to facilitate the petitioners to claim compensation as his vehicle was involved. The investigation said to have been done by the police on this aspect also cannot be taken as conclusive. Even the eye witness P.W.3 claims that he has informed the details of the accident and also vehicle bearing No.AP-16-U-3049, that is how the police would not have any difficulty in identifying the driver of the vehicle. Therefore, from the evidence on record, there appears to be any amount of doubt as to the factual involvement of the vehicle and the lower Tribunal has given sufficient reasons on a question of fact and I think that there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 16-12-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 3422 of 2011 DATE: 16-12-2011 MR