ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MUCHINTHALA BHARATHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the order dated 14.08.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Additional District Judge), Kurnool in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2002.

(2.) HEARD Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company and Sri K.V. Chalapathi Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that in the First Information Report the number of the vehicle or the description of the vehicle was not furnished and at a subsequent point of time, the petitioners in collusion with the owner and the driver of the Vehicle bearing No. A.P.21C. 7803 planted the said vehicle for the purpose of claiming compensation with the connivance of the police. It is true that in the First Information Report the number of the vehicle is not furnished but the police after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle bearing No.A.P.21C. 7803 under Section 304-A of IPC.