THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.701 of 2003 Date : 05 -08-2010 Between : Dharmavarapu Prasanna Kumari .. Appellant And Sanapathi Srinivasa Rao & others .. Respondents This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.701 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the award in O.P.No.354 of 1993, dated 23.8.1999 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, whereunder the petition was dismissed without awarding any compensation. According to the claimant, who was aged 7 years, while crossing the road at Alikam Colony to purchase biscuits from the shop opposite to her house, a lorry bearing registration No.ADN 1422, driven in rash and negligent manner hit her and caused injuries. A case was registered vide Crime No.13 of 1993 before the Srikakulam Rural Police Station against the first respondent-driver. She underwent treatment in the hospital and suffered physical disability on account of the accident. The owner of the lorry was impleaded as respondent No.2 and the insurance company of the said lorry was impleaded as respondent No.3. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The Insurance Company filed counter and denied the allegations made in the claim petition. The claimant was put to strict proof of the accident involving the said lorry. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the issues (1) whether the first respondent-driver drove the lorry in rash and negligent manner and caused the accident which resulted in the injuries to the claimant; and (2) whether the claimant is entitled for compensation. The mother of the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and one S.Kittaiah, an alleged eyewitness to the accident was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On a consideration of the evidence and the material produced, the Tribunal did not believe the case of the appellant that the vehicle involved in the accident was lorry bearing registration No.ADN 1422. The Tribunal therefore, rejected the entire claim and dismissed the petition. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent- Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the finding of the Tribunal that lorry bearing registration No.ADN 1422 was not involved in the accident is erroneous and contrary to record. He would therefore, contend that the claimant is entitled for compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would contend that the claimant failed to establish that the aforesaid lorry alone was involved in the accident and as such the claim petition was rightly dismissed. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, I have perused the First Information Report, which is marked as Ex.A.5. The said F.I.R. was registered at 7.30 a.m. on 20.2.1993, and whereas the alleged accident took place at 6.00 p.m. on 19.2.1993. The claimant herself was the complainant and according to her, an unknown scooter hit her, caused injuries and fled away from the scene. However, the charge sheet-Ex.A.7 was filed with reference to the said accident showing one Senapati Srinivasa Rao as accused. In the charge sheet it was stated that the vehicle bearing registration No.ADH 1422 was involved in the accident in respect of which crime was registered and investigated. It is worthwhile to notice that the complaint as registered in the F.I.R. is totally at variance with the contents of the charge sheet with reference to the vehicle which is alleged to have been involved in the accident. While in the F.I.R. scooter was allegedly involved in the accident, whereas, according to the charge sheet, a lorry bearing No.ADH 1422 was involved. The claimant examined P.W.2, who is said to be an eyewitness to the accident. The said witness stated that the claimant was injured when a lorry hit her. However P.W.2 did not indicate the number of the alleged lorry. P.W.1, who is the mother of the claimant also did not speak about the involvement of the alleged vehicle. It is also worthwhile to notice that even in the claim petition the claimant did not plead that the vehicle bearing registration No.ADH 1422 which was shown as the offending vehicle in the charge sheet was involved, instead shown the number of some other vehicle bearing registration No.ADN 1422. There is substantial variance in the pleadings and in the evidence adduced. Therefore, it cannot be held that the claimant established that the lorry bearing registration No.ADN 1422 against which the claim has been made was involved in the accident. The Tribunal rightly considered this issue and held against the claimant. In the circumstances, it is to be held that the claim petition was rightly dismissed by the Tribunal. There are no merits in the appeal and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J AUGUST 05, 2010 Tsr