IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2043 of 2003 Between: M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 10-5-5/4, Kristal Plaza, Hyderabad. .. Appellant AND B. Gurvaiah Raju, and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award dated 18-01-2002 in O.P.No.1570 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent herein was stated to have been hit by lorry No.AP-9U-5448 driven in high speed rashly and negligently on 19-09-1999 at 10-15 A.M. resulting in grievous injuries to him. The 1st respondent herein claimed a compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- against the owner and insurer of the lorry. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim denying the averments of the claimant. The Tribunal framed issues about the claimant sustaining injuries in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and the relief to be granted. During the course of enquiry, the Tribunal examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award referring to the evidence of the injured-PW.1, corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2-Charge sheet. The discrepancy in the number of the lorry mentioned as AHT 3909 in Ex.A.1 and as AP-9U-5448 in the charge sheet was considered by the Tribunal to have been explained by the information from an eye-witness to the police and by the fact that PW.1 came to know about the lorry number specified in Ex.A.1 only after recovery of his consciousness. The result of investigation by the police was accepted notwithstanding the non-examination of the person, who noted the lorry number and informed PW.1. Hence, the Tribunal concluded that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry No.AP- 9U-5448 caused the accident and the injuries to the claimant. The Tribunal further referred to Exs.A.3 to A.7 relating to the injuries and their treatment and considered that Rs.30,000/- towards medicines and other incidental expenses for treatment, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards past earnings, Rs.20,000/- towards fracture sustained and Rs.5,000/- towards further surgery required should be granted, making a total of Rs.66,000/-. As Ex.B.1-insurance policy shows the ownership and insurance of the vehicle, the Tribunal granted the compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and costs against both the respondents jointly and severally. The insurer challenged the award in this appeal contending that the offending vehicle was specified as AHT 3909 but not AP- 9U-5448 in the First Information Report itself and the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident was due to AP-9U-5448 is a grave error. The non-examination of the person, who identified the vehicle, is fatal and no liability could have been fastened to the owner and insurer of the vehicle bearing No.AP-9U-5448. Heard Sri Sreenivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the appellant and none appeared for the claimant. The appeal against 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle was dismissed for default vide order of this Court dated 28-01-2010. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was not questioned by the respondents to the claim in this appeal or otherwise and the rash and negligent driving of a lorry leading to the accident and injuries to the 1st respondent herein is also not subjected to further challenge in this appeal. It is only the identity of the lorry/vehicle involved in the accident that is in question herein. In the earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report, the injured PW.1 stated that he fell unconscious immediately after the accident. It was clearly specified that after he regained consciousness, he was informed that the lorry involved was AHT 3909 and it was referred to as a Layland lorry. Ex.A.2-Charge sheet shows that the crime vehicle was subsequently identified correctly as AP-9U-5448 by one P. Sreenivasulu, the driver of another vehicle, who was an eye-witness. P. Sreenivasulu was not alleged to be in any way interested or motivated to resort to falsehood and independence and credibility of the statutory investigating agency also need not be in doubt. As the mentioning of lorry number by PW.1 was only on hearsay information and as the positive investigation by the police led to the identification of the vehicle involved in the accident, any confusion in identifying the vehicle need not be carried further. The fact that there was a road traffic accident involving the claimant is not in dispute and no evidence was produced by the respondents about the lorry, the number of which was specified in the First Information Report or about the non-involvement of the lorry, which was identified during the course of investigation by the police as the lorry involved. The injured-petitioner clearly stated that his son Venkateswara Rao told about the number of the lorry and how his son came to know about that number is not known. The suggestion that the said lorry AHT 3909 was not insured and hence, the other lorry was falsely implicated is not corroborated by any other material and significantly, the counter filed on behalf of the insurer, when making a general denial about the involvement of the offending vehicle, did not state anything further about the mentioning of some other lorry number in the First Information Report. As the civil cause has to be determined on the balance of broad human probabilities, there is no reason to deviate from the conclusion on fact by the Tribunal about the probablisation of the involvement of the vehicle No.AP-9U-5448 in this accident and under the circumstances, the appeal has to fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-03-2011 Ksn