The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Warangal (for short the Tribunal) made in M.V.O.P.No. 594 of 2000 dismissing the claim petition.

2. Facts giving rise to institution of the claim are as under:

3. On 14.7.1999 at about 6.00 p.m. claimant while crossing the road at Regional Engineering College, Warangal, was hit by a Hero Honda motor cycle bearing registration No. AP 36 E 9389. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, claimant was injured grievously and undergone treatment in local hospital. After being treated he was discharged on 30.7.1999. Claimant reported the incident to the police on 14.8.1999. Based on his complaint, police registered Crime No. 101 of 1999 and on charge sheet was filed by the police.

4. Alleging that no compensation was paid to him on account of the injuries caused to him due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor cycle, the claimant instituted M.V.O.P. No. 594 of 2000 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act, 1988) claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. The driver and owner of the vehicle were arrayed as respondents 1 and 2 and New India Assurance Company Limited as respondent no.3. Respondents 1 and 2 did not appear. Third respondent opposed the claim disputing the happening of the accident, rash and negligent driving of the driver and nature of the injuries caused to the claimant.

6. The Tribunal formulated following three issues for consideration:

“1). Whether the accident is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle?

2). Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries and disability and is entitled to claim compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?

3). To what relief?

7. On the ground that there was no explanation forthcoming for not giving the complaint to the police immediately but filing such complaint 14 days after he was discharged from the hospital, and assuming that if really accident happened and injuries caused, the individual would have given complaint immediately, the Tribunal doubted the genuineness of the claim and accordingly dismissed the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for appellant contends that Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim on the ground that police complaint was not lodged immediately. He further contends that mere delay in filing the police complaint would not vitiate the institution of the claim under Section 166 of the 1988 Act, and there is no limitation in filing a complaint. Relying on Rule 476 (vii) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (for short the 1989 Rules) learned counsel submits that the claims Tribunal can pass award based on the copy of First Information Report but there is no requirement that First Information Report should be lodged immediately after occurrence of the accident. In support of his contention, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of ”RAVI Vs, BADRINARAYAN AND OTHERS (2011 (4) SCC 693)”

9. Section 166 of the 1988 Act reads as under:

“166. Application for compensation:

(1) An application for compensation arising out of an accident of the nature specified in sub- section (1) of section 165 may be made—

(a) by the person who has sustained the injury; or……

(2) Every application under sub- section (1) shall be made to the Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident occurred, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed: Provided that where any claim for compensation under section 140 is made in such application, the application shall contain a separate statement to that effect immediately before the signature of the applicant.

(4) The Claims Tribunal shall treat any report of accidents forwarded to it under subsection (6) of Section 158 as an application for compensation under this Act.”

10. Rule 476 (7) of the An