This appeal is filed against the order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2002.

2. Heard Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri K.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.

3. The award passed by the Tribunal below is assailed by the appellant-Insurance Company on the grounds that the claimants failed to establish the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident and despite the said fact, the learned Tribunal gave its finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the Tempo Trax AP.21C. 7803 and also that the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is on higher side which requires to be reduced in this appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that in the First Information Report the number of the vehicle or the description of the vehicle was not furnished and at a subsequent point of time, the petitioners in collusion with the owner and the driver of the Vehicle bearing No. A.P.21C. 7803 planted the said vehicle for the purpose of claiming compensation with the connivance of the police. It is true that in the First Information Report the number of the vehicle is not furnished but the police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.A.P.21C. 7803 under Section 304-A of IPC.

5. It is always not necessary that the First Information Report should contain all the details. Omission to mention the number of the offending vehicle does not automatically lead to a conclusion that a particular vehicle was not involved in the accident. At a subsequent stage by examining the witnesses, who witnessed the incident, the police can find out the identity of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident during the course of their investigation.

6. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the following decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants:-

(1) Ravi Vs., Badrinarayan and others (2011) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693), wherein it was laid down that the delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt claimant’s case.

(2) Kusum Lata and others Vs., Satbir and others (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases 646), wherein it was held that compensation cannot be denied to the claimants on the ground that the number of the vehicle and the name of the driver were not mentioned in the First Information Report. It was further held that not noting down number of the offending vehicle and taking victim for medical aid soon after the accident is normal human conduct.

7. In the instant case, the First Information Report was lodged promptly. Though the number of the offending vehicle was not mentioned in the First Information Report, the police after thorough investigation identified that the Tempo Trax APC. 7803 was involved in the accident.

8. P.W.3 Gangaram Mohan Reddy, the Assistant Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Ramajipur of Balanagar Mandal stated in his evidence before the Tribunal below that on 09.12.2001 at about 5.00 A.M. he, the Village Administrative Officer-Bali Reddy and the deceased-Kurmaiah were on duty at sand check post, Balanagar. Then, one Trax Jeep bearing No. AP. 21C. 7803 came driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed the deceased, who was sitting in a chair on the left side of the road and the deceased having received severe injuries died on account of the said injuries.

9. The claimants examined the driver of the Tempo Trax AP. 21C.7803 as P.W.4. He specifically stated in his evidence that at about 5.00 A.M. on 09.12.2001 while he was driving the said Tempo Trax noticed a lorry coming in the opposite direction and a car over-taking the said lorry and in order to avert the collision with the car he took the jeep to the extreme left side of the road and in that process t