IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No : 2410 of 2000 Between: Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., . .Petitioner And Ballamkonda Adireddy and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No : 2410 of 2000 JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed by the insurance company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Adilabad. A compensation with respect to the injuries was claimed by the 1st respondent before the tribunal seeking Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the accident occurred on 26.06.1996. The 1st respondent had claimed before the tribunal that when an auto bearing No.AP 11 T 9572 driven by the 1st respondent in O.P and belonging to the 2nd respondent in O.P and insured with the appellant-3rd respondent in O.P was reversed in the traffic jam, which resulted the accident and caused injuries to the claimant. 2) The tribunal below on consideration of the evidence, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as prayed for together with interest at 12% p.a. Questioning the said award, the present appeal is filed. The tribunal below found that the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and consequently proceeded to and granted compensation as prayed for. So, in this appeal learned counsel for the appellant contends that the very accident is unbelievable and the tribunal has erred in finding in issue No.1. Learned counsel states that though the accident occurred on 26.06.1996, the present claim petition was filed on 25.03.1997 and the first information report registered in Crime No.19 of 1996 before the P.S. Bellampally itself is dated 16.12.1996 i.e., six months after the accident. Learned counsel also stated that Bellampally is a small town and the allegation that there was a traffic jam and when the claimant was waiting in the traffic jam and the said auto was reversed without any indication etc., is unbelievable per se. Learned counsel also states that the compensation is granted as prayed for without there being any material in support of the said claim. The evidence on record only shows that some injury caused to the claimant, which was treated and that no material was produced to connect the said injury with the alleged accident. The liability imposed on the appellant is therefore not justified. 3) Learned counsel for the petitioner-respondent on the contrary was unable to explain as to why the first information report was filed after six months and the present claim petition is filed several months thereafter. Learned counsel for the respondent is also unable to explain that how such a traffic jam in a small town like Bellampalli was caused and it is not as if in some metropolitan city, where an incident of this nature could be possible. It is evident from the record that respondent Nos.1 and 2 both remained exparte and there are enough circumstances, which lead to seriously doubting about the occurrence of such an accident and apparently the liability is passed on to the insurance company just to claim compensation. The evidence of claimant shows that he himself gave the report on 16.12.1996 after he was discharged from N.I.M.S, Hyderabad. He therefore justified the delay. The police also investigated into the crime and Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the charge sheet. Merely because the police filed the charge-sheet claimed that the accident has occurred, the tribunal below has proceeded to accept that the alleged accident and linked the same to the offending auto. The tribunal, therefore, mainly relied on the charge sheet and there was no independent evidence before the tribunal to establish that the said accident was occurred on the day as alleged. No independent witness was examined by the claimant to establish the said claim and as such, the very finding of the tribunal on issue No.1 is not sustainable on the facts and circumstances of the case. Except self-serving testimony of the claimant, there is no independent evidence and as such, the burden of proving the said claim, which had to be discharged by the claimant; was not discharged by him. Consequently, the finding of the tribunal below in issue No.2 namely payment of compensation and its liability is also unsustainable and the order passed in O.P is laible to be set aside so far as the appellant is concerned. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the award dated 04.02.1999 passed in O.P. No.136 of 1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad is hereby set aside, consequently the O.P. No.136 of 1997 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR November 25, 2009 KSH