JUDGMENT

The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal stating that the offending vehicle TATA 207 was not involved in the accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 07.04.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., near Kachahalli gate between a TATA 207 vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-4902 (offending vehicle) and claimant's motorcycle. Therefore, the claimant has preferred claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation.

3. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the records.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the TATA 207 vehicle No.KA-02- D-4902 was falsely implicated in the accident for the purpose of making a claim against the Insurance Company. Further, it is submitted that the accident was caused on 07.04.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., and the injured brother has filed a complaint against the unknown vehicle. Further, in the wound certificate, the history of the alleged accident is mentioned as a road traffic accident without mentioning the number and nature of the vehicle, but suddenly, in the charge sheet, the number of the offending vehicle TATA 207 came up, but for this, there is no evidence on the part of the claimant to prove how this vehicle was involved in the accident. Therefore, it is submitted that without there-being any explanation from the Investigating Officer as to how this vehicle was involved and also in the absence of examination of an Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet, it is a doubtful circumstance regarding the involvement of the vehicle stated in the claim petition. Therefore, he submitted that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the case. Therefore, he prays for setting aside the judgment and award and allowing the appeal.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - claimant submitted that the accident was caused on 07.04.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. There might not have been eyewitnesses quite naturally. Therefore, just because there are no eyewitnesses, that cannot be a ground to suspect the claim petition. After the accident, the police have started the investigation and found out the vehicle involved in the accident and charge sheeted the driver of the offending vehicle, who caused the accident. Also, the driver of the TATA 207 vehicle was examined as RW.3, and he stated that he had caused the accident. Further, the evidence of RW.3 shows that he had pleaded guilty and paid fine amount. Therefore, he submitted that these evidence are sufficient and cogent to prove that TATA 207 vehicle was involved in the accident.

Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

6. Admittedly, as per the complaint and FIR -

Ex.P2, it is stated that an unknown vehicle had hit the motorcycle of the claimant. The accident was caused on 07.04.2009 at about 11.30 p.m. Obviously, there might not have been eyewitnesses to the accident at that time. But soon after the accident, within two hours, his brother has lodged the complaint on 08.04.2009 at 1.00 a.m.

(midnight). The complaint given is found to be submitted before the police in a natural course of time without getting any manipulation in the mind of involving the vehicle. Quite-naturally, when the vehicle is not known, it is mentioned before the hospital authority while admitting the injured for treatment that the claimant has suffered injuries in a road traffic accident. If the vehicle number and its nature are not known to the persons or to the complainant while admitting the injured to the hospital, then quite-naturally, the number and nature of the vehicle cannot be stated before the hospital authority. Just because the nature and number of the vehicle are not stated in the complaint and before the hospital authority, the same cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition by saying that the vehicle stated in the claim petition is an implicated one.

7. Where the f