JUDGMENT:

These appeals are preferred by the Claimants against the dismissal order passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims tribunal-cum-I Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Ranga reddy district in O.P.Nos.364 & 365 of 2009, dated 05.08.2011.

2. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions on the ground that the name of the subject vehicle is not mentioned properly by the witnesses. At one place, they have said that the vehicle name is Bolero and at other places, the vehicle name was mentioned as Jeep, Bulldozer etc.,. The Tribunal has disbelieved the version of PW-1 with regard to the accident that occurred because of the said vehicle. Secondly, when the accident has taken place on 15.12.2008, the complaint was given on 17.12.2008. On these two counts, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions.

3. Mr. C.M. Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the accident happened on 15.12.2008 when the rider and the pillion rider were traveling on the bike and both of them have sustained injuries and immediately in ambulance they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital and from there they were shifted to Kims Hospital. He submits that in the discharge summary, it is mentioned that the claimants were hit by Bolero vehicle. He submits that the claimants are illiterates and for that reason the said mistake of the vehicle(cid:146)s name crept in the evidence and for the delay and laches in filing the Complaint, Tribunal cannot dismiss the claim petitions. He submits that in the complaint that is given, it is mentioned that after the accident as they sustained grievous injuries, they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital and thereafter they were shifted to Kims Hospital. As such, a delay of 2 days has taken place. He submits that the medical board has issued certificates in respect of the two claimants stating that they have sustaind 50% and 60% disabilities. He submits that for the treatment they have underwent, they have incurred a lot of amount and they were doing business and earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month. He submits that the Tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petitions as there is no dispute that the claimants have sustained injuries in the said accident.

4. Mr. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent-Insurance Company submits that whenever an accident takes place and a per son is admitted in the hospital, immediately, the same will be informed to the Police as a medico legal case. In this case, no such information was sent by the Hospital to the Police and the claimants have lodged the complaint after 2 days that itself shows that as an afterthought, to get the compensation, the said vehicle was implicated and basing on their statements, FIR was registered and later charge sheet was filed. He submits that once they mention the number of the vehicle the same will be carried in the FIR as well as in the charge sheet. He submits that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petitions as the claimants failed to prove the accident and involvement of the vehicle. He submits that the doctor who has issued certificates is one of the member of the medical board and he has categorically stated in the evidence that he is not the doctor who has treated the claimants and even on that count also the claim petitions cannot be considered. The said disability certificates issued showing that claimants have sustained 50% and 60% disability also cannot be considered. He submits that claimants have filed medical bills showing that they have incurred certain amount but to prove the same they have not examined any of the witnesses. Even on those Counts also the claim petitions cannot be considered.

5. It is the case of the claimants that in the accident that took place on 15.12.2008, they sustained severe injuries and immediately they were shifted to Gandhi Hospital in ambulance and thereafter to Kims Hospital. In the discharge summary, the name of the vehicle is mentioned as Bole