THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3077 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is ﬁled against the judgment dated 10.03.2005 in O.P.No.344 of 2001 on the ﬁle of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad. An application has been ﬁled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner, who is a minor, in a motor accident. It is alleged that on 03.11.2000 when the petitioner along with her parents and others were traveling in the auto bearing No.AP-25-T-6955 from Nizamabad to Nandipet near Madhapur village, a lorry bearing No.AP-15-T-69 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and she was treated in the hospital and her father spent money for treatment. The 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company and both of them are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent ﬁled written statement denying the nature of accident, nature of injuries to the petitioner and its liability. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has dismissed the claim and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the petitioner has received injuries in the motor accident as claimed by her? POINT: According to the case of the petitioner, she along with her parents and also another brother were traveling in the auto and the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the incident. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that the charge sheet does not disclose that the petitioner has received any injuries and information with regard to medical certiﬁcate was also not referred in the charge sheet and consequently the claim of the petitioner that about receiving of the injuries in the motor accident is not proved. The lower Tribunal was also not inclined to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.2, taking into consideration his indictment with regard to the nature of evidence given by him in motor vehicle accident cases. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the name of the petitioner has been referred in the First Information Report and the observation of the lower Tribunal that her name was not mentioned in the FIR is not correct. Assuming to be that the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR, it is only a fact disclosing that the parents were going along with their children in the auto and when the mother and father have been treated in the hospital and the doctors have issued certiﬁcates and if really the petitioner has received injuries and treated along with her parents, it should have been deﬁnitely mentioned by police and in the absence of any such material on record and absence of reference of the injuries to the petitioner in the charge sheet clearly goes to show that the lower Tribunal has rightly considered that the claim of the petitioner is not true and consequently there are no merits in the appeal. Therefore, the judgment passed by the lower Tribunal does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 30-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 3077 of 2011 DATE: 30-11-2011 MR