IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that claimants in hit and run cases must only prove their case on the preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.)

1. This Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants-petitioners under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the order, dated 30.04.2010 passed in O.P.No.79 of 2008 by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. The appellants are aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal in granting compensation. The case of the claimants is that on 27.09.2007 while the deceased, who is the husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos.2 to 4 and son of the appellant No.5 going on motor cycle, another motor vehicle came from behind and hit him, due to which the deceased fell down on the road and he was taken to the hospital after PW2/D. Dharmaiah called 108-Ambulance. While undergoing treatment, the deceased died in the hospital on 01.10.2007 post mortem report as well as inquest was conducted on 02.10.2007.

3. In the inquest report it was mentioned that PW2/D. Dharmaiah was the person, who had called for help by calling 108-Ambulance and pursuant to which Ambulance had arrived and taken the deceased to the hospital.

4. The learned trial Court Judge found that PW2 had not lodged any complaint with the police for which reason his evidence is doubtful. Further, the FIR was lodged (4) days after the accident and the FIR do not contain the details of registration number of the vehicle and also the person, who was riding the said vehicle. However, the person, who caused the accident was identified after (2) months. On the said basis, the Tribunal found that no reliance can be placed on the documents produced by the claimants. Accordingly, refused to grant any compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the Tribunal had committed an error in holding that the belated version of causing accident by a two wheeler is incorrect. In fact, the inquest report name of PW2 was mentioned as the person, who had called the ambulance and the deceased was sent to the hospital.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company supported the findings of the Tribunal.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anitha Sharma and Others vs. New India Assurance Company Limited and Another, 2020 INSC 685 : (2021) 1 SCC 171 held that:-

(16). It is quite natural that such a person who had accompanied the injured to the hospital for immediate medical aid, could not have simultaneously gone to the police station to lodge the FIR. The High Court ought not to have drawn any adverse inference against the witness for his failure to report the matter to the police. Further, as the police had themselves reached the hospital upon having received information about the accident, there was perhaps no occasion for AW3 to lodge a report once again to the police at a later stage either.

(17). Unfortunately, the approach of the High Court was not sensitive enough to appreciate the turn of events at the spot, or the appellant-claimants' hardship in tracing witnesses and collecting information for an accident which took place many hundreds of kilometers away in an altogether different State. Close to the facts of the case in hand, this Court in Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand viewed that: (SCC p.638, para-12).

"12. The other ground on which the High Court dismissed the case was by way of disbelieving the testimony of Umed Singh, PW1. Such disbelief of the High Court is totally conjectural. Umed Singh is not related to the appellant but as a good citizen. Umed Singh extended his help to the appellant by helping her to reach the doctor's chamber in order to ensure that an injured woman gets medical treatment. The evidence of Umed Singh cannot be disbelieved just because he did not file a complaint himself. We are constrained to repeat out observation that the total approach of the High Court, unfortunately, was not sensitized enough to appreciate the plight of the victim.

'15. In a situation of this nature, the Trib