THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2269 of 2000 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against the order, dated 04.05.1998, passed by the I Additional District Judge- cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Godavari at Eluru (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.142 of 1994, whereunder the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the death of one Venkateswarlu, in a road accident that occurred on 12.11.1993, was dismissed. 3. The appellants are the claimants in the said O.P. 4. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary, had recorded a finding that there is a discrepancy with regard to the number of the scooter, which caused the accident. In Ex.A-1-First Information Report, Ex.A-2-Charge sheet and Ex.A-3- Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report, the registration number of the scooter was noted as PAJ 4527, whereas the claim petition was filed by the claimants against the owner of the scooter bearing No.PAJ 5427. It is the specific contention of the claimants in the said O.P. that the said accident occurred on 12.11.1993 due to the rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No.PAJ 5427 by the first respondent, which dashed against the deceased resulting in his death. 5. Therefore, there is a clear discrepancy as regards the identity of the vehicle which caused the accident. In such a case, the Tribunal expressed its view that when the accident could not be established as having been caused by the offending vehicle PAJ 5427 and the entire evidence on record revealed that it is the scooter bearing No.PAJ 5427 that caused the accident. Apart from that, unfortunately, the scooter, which caused the accident bearing No.PAJ 5427, as claimed by the claimants, was not insured. Therefore, having regard to the said vital discrepancy, the Tribunal held no liability can be fastened against the owner of the vehicle bearing No.PAJ 5427, since the said vehicle was not covered by any policy. 6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any irrationality or illegality in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order and accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 22nd July 2010 dr