Judgment : This appeal is directed against the Order dt. 2.7.2003 in O.P. No. 863 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Brief facts of the case are that on 15.5.2001 at about 8 p.m. R.Narsimha (hereinafter called as ‘the deceased’) was crossing the road near Koti bus stop. An RTC bus plying on Route No.115 Uppal to Koti dashed against the deceased. Deceased fell down in serious injuries. The driver of the said bus did not stop the bus. He did not take care to shift the deceased to the hospital. A passenger categorically stated that he witnessed the said accident and told the same to the son of the deceased. After the accident, the deceased was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and while undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries on 22.5.2001. The son of the deceased lodged a complaint at the police station, Sultanbazar and basing on the same, a case in Cr.No. 108 of 2001 was registered on 15.5.2001 against an unknown driver of RTC bus. The dead body of the deceased was subjected to post mortem examination and inquest panchanama was conducted over the dead body of the deceased and the section of law was altered into 304-A IPC from 338 IPC. It is not clear whether RTC authorities basing on Criminal Case records caused enquiries to identify the bus and it’s driver with reference to route number, location and time of the accident. It was the prime duty of all the concerned police and RTC officials to identify the bus and its conductor. The appellants who are the legal heirs of the deceased filed O.P. claiming a compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs for the death of the deceased in the accident. Before the Tribunal, the wife of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and Exs:A.1 to A.3 were marked. The respondents remained ex parte. Since no eye witness was examined and since the recitals of Ex:A.1 also do not disclose the particulars of the offending vehicle, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding that the appellants failed to establish that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus driver. It has to be seen that the respondents remained ex parte. They did not even dispute the fact that the deceased was hit by RTC bus. It has to be seen that the respondents remained ex parte. They did not even dispute the fact that the deceased was hit by RTC bus. Under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants need not prove that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question. In the interest of justice, the Award of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. The claimants are at liberty to amend the claim petition and claim compensation under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act, 1988. The Tribunal shall call for the entire record from the concerned police station including the inquest report and reports from RTC authorities suo motu and dispose of the matter on merits. The APSRTC authorities are also directed to submit the particulars of the departmental enquiry conducted by it with regard to the alleged accident. Even if no such particulars are furnished for the lapse of authorities adverse inference has to be drawn against the authorities but not against the claimants. Because, the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased would not be in a position to enquire into the matter. Making fair investigation, finding the culprits and prosecuting them is the primary obligation of the State. Similarly causing enquiries with regard to the accidents and punishing the employees if misconduct is proved is the duty of concerned authorities, here in this case RTC authorities. Subject to the above observation, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for de novo enquiry. The Tribunal shall complete the enquiry and pass award as early as possible, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.