THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3677 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.07.2003 in O.P.No.233 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, the present appeal is filed. The appellants herein are the legal representatives of the deceased Gurajada Brahmaji. The Tribunal while assessing the evidence of PW.1 dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the Tribunal is sustainable? For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal below. The claim of the petitioners in O.P.No.233 of 2001 is for Rs.1,00,000/-. According to them, on 02.01.2001, when the deceased Gurajada Brahmaji was going on motor cycle bearing No.AP 35 B 1331, a dog suddenly came in front of him and to avert the same he turned his vehicle to the left side of the road, lost control over the vehicle and fell on the road, resulting he received injuries all over his body and was immediately taken to Tagarapuvalasa hospital, K.G.H., Visakhapatnam, CDR hospital, Visakhapatnam and succumbed to injuries on 05.01.2001. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioners filed the claim petition at the first instance under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but later the petitioners amended the same under Section 163-A and 167 of the M.V.Act as per orders in I.A.No.11 of 2003, dated 1.4.2003. On behalf of the petitioners, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. In a petition claiming compensation under Section 163 of the M.V.Act, the claimants need not plead or establish that the death in respect of the claim was laid due to any wrongful act or negligence or default of owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. PW.1 is the wife of the deceased. According to her, her husband succumbed to injuries three days after the accident. Admittedly she is not a direct witness to the accident. As seen from Ex.A.1, the Station House Officer, Bheemili registered a case in Crime No.5 of 2001 under Section 338 IPC on the report dated 04.01.2001. There is another report dated 06.01.2001 given by same G.Dharma to the effect that Gurjada Bhrahmaji died on 05.01.2001 at about 12.30 A.M. The earlier report said to have been given by the de facto complainant on 04.01.2001 was not filed along with Ex.A.1, but fact remains that the report was lodged on 4.1.2001 followed by the registering the F.I.R. It is also mentioned in the report dated 06.01.2001 that the brother of the de facto complainant while coming from Visakhapatnam on 02.01.2001 on a motor cycle at about 10.00 P.M. a dog came across the road, and to avert the same, the deceased turned his motor cycle to his left and thereby he lost control over it, fell down on the road and sustained injuries. Admittedly, the accident took place on 02.01.2001. According to PW.1, her husband was admitted in KGH Hospital, Visakhapatnam soon after the accident. But as seen from Ex.A.1, it was given by the brother of the deceased on 04.01.2001. The Tribunal entertained some doubt regarding authenticity of the report dated 04.01.2001, but observed that Ex.A.2 post mortem certificate shows that the deceased died due to head injury. A perusal of the Ex.A-1 report, it was lodged on 6.1.2001. A cursory reading of the said report, there is an endorsement of the S.H.O. Bheemunipatnam that he received above said report on 6.1.2001 at 9 a.m. and altered the Section of law 304-A IPC from 338 IPC in Crime No. 5 of 2001 of Bheemunipatnam Police Station. If the endorsement of the S.H.O. is taken into consideration, certainly there would have been another report lodged by G. Dharma, the brother of the deceased for registering of the F.I.R. under Section 338 of IPC in the same crime number. Unless, there is an earlier F.I.R. registered under Section 338 IPC, the question of altering the Section of law from 338 IPC to 304-A IPC as noted by the S.H.O. Bheemunipatnam on Ex.A-1 does not arise. It is also an admitted fact that the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased in the Government Hospital under Ex.A-2. According to Ex.A-2 post-mortem certificate the deceased died due to head injury. Therefore, the chain of events i.e. from the date of the accident on 2.1.2001, Ex.A-1 reported dated 4.1.2001 and post- mortem report certificate Ex.A-2 clearly shows that the deceased sustained head injury in the road traffic accident on 2.1.2001, later succumbed to injuries on 5.1.2001 followed by report dated 6.1.2001. In the said circumstances of the case and also in view of the admitted post mortem certificate, which clearly reveals that the deceased died due to head injury, it cannot be said that the delay of two days in registering FIR is fatal to the contention of the petitioners. Accordingly, with the above observation, the order of the Tribunal is set aside and matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to dispose of the matter afresh on merits expeditiously by giving opportunity to both parties to adduce evidence. In the result, the C.M.A. is allowed and the matter is remanded back to the tribunal below to decide the matter afresh. The tribunal below shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made in this order by giving opportunity to both sides to put forth their respective cases. K.S.APPA RAO, J 1st April, 2011 PNV & CHV