THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.306 of 1999 JUDGMENT: The appellant and about 20 others from Kerala came to Andhra Pradesh to visit Tirupati and other places in a Mini Bus bearing No.KL-5A/7765 owned by the 4th respondent and insured with the 5th respondent on 11.09.1992. At 11:55 pm on that day, an accident occurred on Bangarupalem-Chittoor main road, due to collision between the Mini Bus and a lorry bearing No.AP-26T-3609, driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The wife and son of the appellant died. The appellant filed M.V.O.P.No.400 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Chittoor claiming a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation, alleging that he too received injuries in the accident. According to him, the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. The O.P. was contested by the insurance companies. While admitting the occurrence of the accident, they disputed the allegation that the appellant received injuries. According to them, the name of the appellant did not figure in the list of injured persons. The Tribunal clubbed all the O.Ps. that arose out of the same accident and passed a common order dated 29.12.1997. O.P.No.400 of 1993 was dismissed, on the ground that the name of the appellant did not figure in the list of injured persons. Hence, this appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.5. An unfortunate and ghostly accident occurred in which three or four persons including the driver of the bus died and as many as 18 persons received injures. A batch of O.Ps. came to be filed claiming compensation on different accounts. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence before it, the Tribunal held that the driver of the lorry is liable to the extent of 80% and driver of the bus, to the extent of 20% for the accident. While the compensation was awarded in all other cases, O.P.No.400 of 1993 was dismissed. The only basis for the Tribunal to deny compensation to the appellant is that his name did not figure in the list of injured. It is not difficult to imagine the scene, when three or four persons died and about 20 persons received injuries in the accident. It is only the broad facts, that will be presented in the F.I.R. and it cannot be taken as the conclusive proof as to what has occurred in the scene. The appellant has placed certain documents pertaining to his treatment. He cannot be expected to take immediate treatment, much less to file a complaint, when he lost his wife and child in the accident. Since the details of treatment are not available before this Court, nor it is possible to ascertain them, this Court feels that it is a fit case for awarding 25,000/- towards no fault liability. Hence, the C.M.A. is allowed awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act in favour of the appellant. The amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 09.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.306 of 1999 Date: 09.12.2011 JSU