The main legal point established in the judgment is that delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case in genuine cases, and the proceeding under the Act has to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.

JUDGMENT

Alok Aradhe, J. - Both these appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) have been filed against judgment dated 21.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). M.F.A.No.3283/2014 has been filed by the insurance company, whereas, M.F.A.No.7185/2014 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since, both the appeals arise from the same accident and same judgment passed by the Tribunal, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 12.07.2011, the claimant viz., Manohar V.S. was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA02-HK-2997. When he reached Devarahalli Gate, Kasaba Hobli, a Car bearing registration No.KA-34-M-92928 came from the opposite direction, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and while taking over a KSRTC Bus came on the wrong side of the road and dashed against the motor cycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Hosmat Hospital, Bangalore where he remained as an inpatient from 12.07.2011 to 16.7.2011 and again from 21.09.2011 to 26.9.2011 i.e., for a period of 11 days. The claimant was directed to take follow up treatment and two other operations were performed on the claimant for implants.

3. The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that at the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 27 years and was working as a Welder with Tata Kirloskar Pvt. Ltd, Bidadi and was earning Rs.18,000/- per month. It was further pleaded that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. It was also pleaded that on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimant has lost his source of income. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest. The respondent No.2 filed written statement, in which the averments made in the claim petition were denied. The date, time as well as the manner of accident was also denied. The age, occupation and income as well as the involvement of the offending vehicle was also denied.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant, in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1 and two other witnesses namely Dr.Krishna Prasad and Mayanna Gowda as PW2 and PW3 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. The respondents examined Dr.D.V.Channabasavaiah as RW1 and got marked document viz., Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, vide impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver, as a result of which, the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. Being aggrieved, these appeals have been filed by the insurance company as well as the claimant.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal failed to notice that there was a delay of 1 day in lodging the complaint with the police authorities by the alleged eye witness viz., Guruswamy and aforesaid witness was not examined to prove the involvement of the insured car. It is also pointed out that claimant in his evidence did not mention the name of the complainant and from perusal of Ex.P4 i.e., wound certificate; it is evident that the injured himself appeared before medical officer of Tiptur Government Hospital. It is also pointed out that Tribunal ought to have appreciated that the claimant in his evidence had admitted that the number of the vehicle was not known to him. It is also urged that the Tribunal ou