Delay in lodging an FIR cannot solely negate compensation claims if credible evidence substantiates the claim, emphasizing the need for a just compensation framework in motor accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

CHALLA GUNARANJAN, J.

1. Present appeal is preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act assailing order dated 08.12.2021 passed in M.V.O.P. No.62/2017 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Tanuku, rejecting the claim for compensation.

2. Parties herein will be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the present case in a nutshell are as follows:

(a) Claimants are father, mother and siblings of the deceased. They have instituted claim under Section 166 of MV Act seeking compensation of Rs. 14,85,000/- on account of death of Ms.Veera Veni, daughter of claimants 1 and 2. It is pleaded that while deceased, on 22.12.2016, was sweeping the front yard at their residence, during evening hours at about 05.00 p.m., the 1^st respondent drove Bolero Truck bearing No.AP 37TD 2167 in rash and negligent manner and hit her, causing serious injuries. She was immediately shifted to hospital for treatment, where she underwent treatment and was discharged on 22.01.2017. Later, as she developed complications, she was yet again readmitted on 09.03.2017 and was treated till 17.03.2017. She, later passed away on 24.03.2017. The said incident stated to have been reported to police on 24.03.2017, who registered FIR vide Cr.No.55 of 2017 for offence under Section 338 IPC. As the victim later succumbed, the offence came to be altered to that of 304(A) of IPC. Police stated to have investigated into the crime and filed charge sheet against driver of offending truck.

(b) The deceased stated to be aged 26 years and used to earn Rs. 7,500/- per month as lace worker. She was also hearing and speech impaired and was unmarried on the date of accident. Basing on aforesaid narrated facts, claim was laid for Rs. 14,85,000/-.

(c) Respondents 1 and 2, who are driver and owner of offending vehicle remained ex parte. 3^rd respondent insurer filed written statement denying the manner in which accident occurred and further that the 1^st respondent was rash and negligent in causing the accident. Besides denying the allegations of claimants, denied the age and income of the deceased. Based on aforesaid pleadings, Tribunal has framed following issues:

1. Whether the death of the deceased Veera Veni caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle bearing No.AP 37TD 2167 or not?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation from the respondent No.1 to No.3 or not?

3. To what relief?

(d) In order to prove the case of claimants, 1^st claimant came to be examined as P.W.1, and doctor, who treated deceased as P.W.2 and eyewitness to the incident as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and Ex.X1. For 3^rd respondent, its officer was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1 policy. The Tribunal, on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has come to conclusion that the claimants have failed to establish that the accident has occurred on 22.12.2016 causing injuries to the victim and further that the delay in reporting the incident to police raised cloud on the claim that accident has occurred, therefore, disbelieving the version of claimants, held 1^st issue in negative. The Tribunal, in the process, has also come to conclusion that there is no proximity between the accident and cause of death. Accordingly, rejected the claim for compensation. Since the occurrence of accident and the death being on account of such accident were negatived, the Tribunal refrained from embarking on 2^nd issue.

(e) Assailing the same, present appeal is preferred.

4. (a) L