B. Siva Sankara Rao, J.

One of the questions involved in the appeal is whether the Tribunal can award any compensation under Section 165 and 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short M.V. Act) read with Section 161 of M.V. Act for a hit and run claim as interim measure for no such bar to maintain, later for final claim under the Special Scheme as per Section 163 of M.V. Act so to deduct out of final payment on determination; like in Sections 140 and 166 of M.V. Act, though there is a specific bar for final claim under Section 163-A of M.V. Act, once the claim as interim measure made and ordered under Section 140 of the Act.

2. The unsuccessful claimant maintained O.P. No.394 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short the Tribunal) against two respondents i.e., owner and insurer of auto bearing No. AP 22U 7736 for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 166 of M.V. Act for the accidental death of her husband M. Narayana. The Tribunal, after contest by the 2nd respondent insurer, from 1st respondent owner remained ex-parte, dismissed the claim on 25.03.2008. Impugning the same, the claimant maintained the present appeal.

3. Heard both sides at length. Perused the material on record.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for appellant that the Tribunal gravely erred in dismissing the claim instead of allowing the claim either on fault liability under Section 166 of M.V. Act or at least for no fault liability under Section 163-A of M.V. Act for the accident occurred while the auto was in use and the mere non mentioning of the number of the auto no way fatal to the payment of compensation, hence seeking to allow the appeal by setting aside the dismissal award.

5. Whereas it is the submission of the learned standing counsel for insurer that the award of the Tribunal holds good and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere and there is no evidence to show the vehicle of 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent of the claim petition was involved in the accident and it a later implication as rightly concluded by the Tribunal and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

6. The brief facts of the case are that on 25.07.2005 while the deceased Narayana was proceeding towards Padmini Show room at about 4.30 pm when he reached Marrichenna Reddy Statue, Mettuguda, the auto allegedly came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against him, as a result, he sustained fractured injuries and on the same day night he was succumbed to injuries at NIMS hospital while undergoing treatment.

7. The fact that the deceased as a pedestrian sustained injuries having been dashed by unknown auto is therefrom on record. Once such is the case, the only thing to consider is whether the vehicle of 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent covered by Ex.A4 charge-sheet is involved in the accident or not. There is evidence of PW.1 wife of the deceased, who is not an eye witness to the accident. RW.1 was examined on behalf of respondents besides Ex.B1 policy, Ex.B2 acquittal judgment passed in C.C. No.155 of 2006 of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Prohibition & Excise, Mahabubnagar, for not proving the involvement of the auto. It is therefrom the Tribunal dismissed the claim against the owner and insurer of the auto, for the very involvement of the auto itself creates a doubt and with an observation of later implication. A close perusal of the material on record by re-appreciation of evidence is very clear to the conclusion of the auto of 1st respondent is not involved and later implicated as rightly concluded by the Tribunal.

8. However, the fact remains to consider further is, can it be considered as hit and run case from what is proved of the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed outcome of hit by unknown auto and there appears no bar for Tribunal to award fixed sum as interim measure under Section 161 of M.V. Act wit