JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/Insurance Company questioning the Award of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) in O.P.No.2736 of 2003, dated 12.06.2006.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 is the wife, respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the children and respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the parents of the deceased, Kolkur Ashok. On 29.10.2001 at about 10.30 pm., while the deceased was going on his motorcycle bearing No.AP23T 5067 from Kohir to Sadasivapet, and when he reached near Gangakatva Bridge in the village limits of Aroor, Medak District, a jeep bearing No.KA38M 0596 came from Hyderabad side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. In the said accident, the deceased fell down on the road and died on the spot. Respondent Nos.2 to 6 herein filed the aforesaid OP against the owner of the jeep (respondent No.1 herein) and the insurer of the jeep (appellant herein), claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- for the death of the deceased.

3. Before the Tribunal, owner of the jeep and the insurance company filed separate counter affidavits denying the allegations and contended that the jeep was not involved in the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep and awarded total compensation of Rs. 3,95,000/- under various heads, with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. Aggrieved by the said Award, the appellant/Insurance Company filed the present appeal.

5. Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the jeep in question was not involved in the accident and that the case was manipulated against the driver of the jeep after due deliberations. He further submits that admittedly, the deceased was hit by an unknown vehicle as is evident from Ex.A.1, FIR. He further submits that when the evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that the jeep dashed against the motorcycle and vanished from the accident site, it would be difficult for him to remember the jeep number, when the accident occurred in the night at about 10.30 pm. He further submits that though P.W.2 stated that he informed about the accident to the police immediately after the accident, no reasons were assigned as to why police could not trace out the vehicle until 23.12.2002, when the accident occurred on 29.10.2001. Basing on the above submissions, he argued that the crime jeep is a planted one and seeks to set aside the award of the Tribunal. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the decisions of this Court in APSRTC, Hyderabad v. N.Krishna Reddy 2004 (3) ALD (NOC) 312and United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Sanga Reddy Town v. G.Mallaiah 2010 (6) ALD 13.

6. Per contra, Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 6, submits that the jeep in question was very much involved in the accident which was detected in the police investigation. In the FIR, the particulars of the vehicles were not mentioned because the complaint was lodged by the brother of the deceased on the information given by some other person. As he was not the eyewitness to the accident and as the information received by him was not clear about the particulars of the vehicle, he only mentioned that an unknown vehicle hit the deceased. Therefore, mere non-mentioning of the vehicle particulars is not a consequence. He further submits that P.W.2, who is the eyewitness for the accident, clearly deposed that on 29.10.2001 at about 10.30 pm., while he was proceeding on a cycle along with his friend, a jeep bearing No.KA38M 0596 hit the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. As P.W.2 clearly mentioned the jeep number which hit the deceas