THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.ANO.3520 OF 2011 ORDER The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award dated.30-12-2004 in O.P.No.1035 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Khammam, whereunder for a compensation for the death of the deceased-Gore Saheb in a motor accident, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was granted as compensation. The claim of the petitioner is that on 31-05-1997 when the deceased reached the District Court premises at Khammam, then a Jeep bearing No.APW 2512 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased, as a result of which he died. The respondent No.1 is the owner and second respondent who is the appellant herein denied the nature of the incident and factum of involvement of the jeep. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to a conclusion that the vehicle bearing No.APW 2512 was involved in the incident and granted a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation as the vehicle bearing No.APW 2512 was not involved in the incident? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the First Information Report shows that the particulars of the vehicle were not given and subsequently the vehicle bearing No.APW 2512 was planted and consequently there is no liability. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the criminal court in C.C.No.761 of 1997 after a regular trial has acquitted the accused-driver of the jeep and that has also a relevancy in the particular circumstances of the case. He does not dispute about the fact that the factum of acquittal in a criminal case is not conclusive and binding on the Motor Vehicles’ Tribunal and the Tribunal has to independently assess the evidence. In this case, the incident has happened on 31-05-1997. The complainant who lodged the report is not even as an eye witness to the incident. But, however the investigation was completed and during the course of investigation some witnesses were examined. PW.2 who deposed in this case as an eye witness was also examined as PW.5 in the criminal case. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and found that the evidence of PW.2 about the incident is believable. Evidently, RW.1 has no personal knowledge about the nature of the incident. The appellant has not conducted any investigation by itself to come to a conclusion that the vehicle was not involved and that it was a planted vehicle. A bare denial by itself will not prove its contention. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a decision reported in United India Insurance Company Limited, Sanga Reddy Town, Medak District Vs. G.Mallaiah and others([1]) where in the particular circumstances of that case the Court held that the First Information Report and the inquest report being silent about the involvement of a particular vehicle and the driver of the Tractor was said to have been produced subsequently and it is a case of planting of a Tractor to gain the compensation. He also relied upon the another decision reported in Konda Anuradha and others Vs. Gopi Reddy Venkat Reddy and another([2]) where a police case was closed as undetectable and subsequently the charge sheet is said to have been filed against some vehicle, which clearly goes to show that it was suspicious and in the facts of the above case, the Court was not inclined to accept the claim and did not interfere with the opinion expressed by the lower Tribunal. It was a case where the evidence of eye witness was rejected by the lower Tribunal. He also relied upon another decision reported in Union of India Vs. Korlapati Srinivasa Sivarama Prasad ([3]) where though the vehicles were found at the scene of offence, the police did not conduct any panchanama nor got the vehicles examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and finding a particular vehicle has been guilty of rashness and negligence without any investigation like examining eye witnesses etc., is not to be considered. All the above facts have no application to the facts of this present case. The lower Tribunal has assessed the evidence of PW.2, who is an eye witness, and there is not of much material to show that he was interested in helping the claimants. The purpose of investigation after lodging of the complaint against an unknown vehicle is the duty of the police to know about the vehicle involved in the incident. In the course of such investigation, the police will gather evidence to prove the guilty of a particular driver of the vehicle causing the incident. Therefore, merely because the number of the vehicle was not given in the First Information Report, no suspicion can be entertained that subsequent investigation done by the police is bad and when particularly an eye witness was examined before the Court whose credibility was accepted by the Court without any doubt. In fact, the criminal case did not end in an acquittal on the ground that the vehicle was not involved. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, a question of fact which has been appreciated and arrived at by the lower Tribunal without there being any contrary evidence to throw any doubt cannot be disturbed. The appellant could have got its own investigation done to show as to whether the jeep which was said to have been involved in the accident was really in that area on that day or whether it was not plying at that time. In the absence of contrary evidence, I feel it is not in the interest of justice to interfere with the finding of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, there are no grounds to allow the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 23-12-2011 TSNR [1] 2010(6) ALD 13 [2] 2008(4) ALT 34 [3] 2005(1) ALD (NOC) 2