THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3212 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant- claimant against the award, dated 19.09.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in O.P.No.446/1997. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant, husband of the deceased Jampana Anjaneyulu died and his L.Rs. were added. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: According to the petitioner, the deceased was working as Mutha Maistry in K.C.P.Limited in loading and unloading works, on 14.01.1996 while she was in K.C.P.Limited, Vuyyuru, the driver of tractor and trailor came in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, as a result she fell down and received injuries and she was shifted to Srirama Nursing home at Vuyyuru, where she died. The death was informed to police and a case in Cr.No.15/96 was registered. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate usual counters denying the petition averments. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed. 1. Whether the deceased died in a Motor Accident on 14.01.1996 due to the rash and negligent driving of Tractor-cum-Trailor by its Driver? 2. What is the correct age and income of deceased? 3. To what amount the petitioner is entitled towards compensation and from whom? 4. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the court below dismissed the O.P. holding that there is no material to show that the deceased died in the motor vehicle accident on 14.01.1996. 5. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant is that the trial Court has erroneously dismissed the O.P. inspite of sufficient material to show that the accident has taken place in which the deceased died due to the negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? In this case, the accident has taken place on 14.01.1996 and the FIR was given on 29.02.1996. In case, the accident has taken place on 14.01.1996 involving the tractor in which the deceased was killed, there ought to have been immediate action. 7. The deceased was said to be working as Muta Maistry in K.C.P. sugar factory. The accident has taken place at sugar factory. If the accident is true, in all probability the authorities of sugar factory would have taken appropriate steps for giving complaint immediately and would have taken follow up action. 8. Though the deceased was allegedly shifted to private hospital immediately after the accident, there is no immediate information by that hospital to police inspite of her death immediately. It is difficult to believe such a situation. 9. There is no inquest report nor there is post-mortem report to show that there was any accidental death of the deceased. In fact, it is hard to observe but there is no material. Though some material is filed, the same does not inspire confidence, may be the deceased died natural death after a month and odd thereafter some ingenious brain might have worked for filing a O.P. claiming compensation. 10. In these circumstances, where inspite of the alleged accident being at the sugar factory, there was no complaint by the authorities of the factory, there being no information from the hospital to police informing the death of the deceased inspite of the fact of her being admitted in the hospital and there being no post- mortem to prove accidental death and as there is unexplained delay of 1 ½ months in giving the complaint to police, I hold that the trial Court was right in not believing the petitioner’s case about the accidental death of the deceased. I see no grounds to interfere with the same and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th June 2010, Rns