JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellants - claimants aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to grant compensation on account of death of the deceased viz., Mr.Sanjeeva Reddy.

2. Heard. Perused the record.

3. The case of the claimants is that the FIR was lodged by PW-2 on 15-07-2002, which is a Telugu written complaint stating that while the deceased and another were going on two wheeler offending vehicle, which is Hero Honda motorcycle had hit the scooter. Due to which, the deceased / pillion rider fell down, received injuries and resulting in death in the hospital. PW-2 was driving another vehicle behind the scooter, which met with an accident on which Mr.Sanjeva Reddy was pillion rider. The Tribunal having recorded the evidence found as follows:

1. First on the printed proforma of the FIR at Column No.3(a) the occurrence of the offence was stuck off and written as ‘Sunday’. On information received at the Police Station, it was altered as 15-07-2002.

2. The hospital records of Mr.Sanjeva Reddy reflects that the history of the accident as fall from scooter when hit against a Tractor under Ex.X-1.

3. The other person, who was travelling on a scooter namely Mr.Ranga Reddy’s case sheet reflects that he was alleged to have been hit when he was going on two wheeler but hit the electric pole on 14-07-2002 at Hanumakonda X-Roads.

For the said discrepancies in the FIR and the reasons given in the case sheets of Mr.Sanjeva Reddy and Mr.Ranga Reddy, the Tribunal found that the claimants did not prove the death of Mr.Sanjeva Reddy and denied compensation.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that there are corrections in the FIR and there are 3 different versions given in the FIR, case sheet of Mr.Sanjeva Reddy and version of case sheet of Mr.Ranga Reddy. The refusal of the Tribunal is correct. The claimants failed to prove that in fact the accident has taken place as alleged by them.

5. Having gone through the FIR, the Telugu written complaint given by PW-2 does not have any corrections. It is clearly stated in the narration of the complaint that the deceased Mr.Sanjeva Reddy and Mr.Ranaga Reddy were travelling on one scooter and the offending motorcycle, which is Hero Honda was coming in opposite direction and hit the scooter. PW-2 was travelling on another scooter. In the complaint the delay is explained as injured were taken to hospital.

6. Police filed FIR after receipt of complaint. FIR is printed proforma on which the details of the complaints are written. Police have made corrections regarding date as Sunday and date on which the information was received as 15th. Though there is tampering on the printed proforma, which is printed by the Police personnel, the Telugu written complaint of PW-2 does not have corrections in the entire complaint and it is specifically endorsed by the Police that the complaint was received on 15-07-2002 at 8.45 P.M.

7. On the basis of the entries made by the Police the complaint cannot be disbelieved. The accident has taken place and there is a clear narration giving details of all the two wheelers involved and the persons who are present at the scene.

8. The version given in the hospital MLC of the deceased Mr.Sanjeva Reddy is that the vehicle had hit a Tractor. The Doctor who had written the said endorsement and the person who has given the said details are not examined. Same is the case sheet of Mr.Ranga Reddy, the other person who was injured.

9. In absence of Insurance Company proving that who were the persons, who had given information when the accident had taken place, the version written in the case sheets, in absence of examining either the Doctor or treating Doctor of the person, who had written the reasons, cannot be made basis to refuse the compensation. It is a case where two persons were seriously injured and one died.

10. In the said circumstances, when the said two persons were taken to two different hospitals it is not known as to who had carried the sa