Claimants must establish vehicle involvement in an accident on the preponderance of probability; mere delay in FIR does not negate claims if credible evidence exists.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/insurance company impugns the judgment and award dated 6.5.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hingoli in MACP no.80 of 2017.

2. The Respondents/claimants instituted M.A.C.P. No.80 of 2017 raising claim for compensation of Rs.55.00 Lakh under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act towards accidental death of Dattarao Karhale, who died in the accident dated 10.3.2027. The claimants are coming with a case that, while deceased was proceeding on his motorcycle in the vicinity of village Santuk Pimpri, offending cruiser jeep bearing registration No.MH-38/4387 gave forceful dash to his motorcycle. Initially, deceased was admitted to the Civil Hospital, at Hingoli. Then he was referred to Global Hospital, at Nanded. Thereafter, he took treatment at Dhakane Hospital, Aurangabad. Lastly, succumbed to the injuries at Government Hospital, Aurangabad. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on 3.4.2017 against driver of the offending jeep. According to the claimants, deceased was employed in private service with Shiva Parvati Poultry Feed Pvt. Ltd., Limbala Makta, Hingoli and earning Rs.6,500/- p.m. In pursuance to claim notice, respondent no.1 owner of the vehicle caused his appearance and denied adverse allegations. Lastly, contended that his vehicle was insured with respondent no.2, if any liability arises, it shall be borne by the insurer.

3. Insurer refuted claim alleging false implication of the insured vehicle, particularly, for the reason that FIR has been lodged after 23 days of the accident.

4. The claimants in their endeavor to prove the accident involving cruiser jeep, relied upon the evidence of CW 1-Shailesh Dattarao Karhale Exh.-15, CW-2- Santosh Kailash Giri Exhibit 23 and CW-3 Balasaheb Ramkishan Bongane Exh.24 as well as police papers i.e. FIR exh.33, panchnama exh.34. Respondent/insurer relied upon certain admissions in the cross-examination of eye witness, so also certified copies of oral evidence recorded in SCC No.457 of 2018 pertaining to subject accident that was registered against driver of the offending vehicle.

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/insurance company vehemently submit that, this is a case of false implication. The incident occurred on 10.3.2017 at about 7 p.m. Deceased was initially admitted to Civil Hospital, at Hingoli. Thereafter, he was taken to Global Hospital, Nanded for better treatment. Further, he was treated at Dunakhe Hospital, Aurangabad and Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad. However, there is no entry as regards to accident particularly involving the insured vehicle. None of the alleged witness gave statement to police as regards to accident and offending vehicle. There is no justification for lodging FIR after 23 days. By inviting attention of this Court to the cross-examination of alleged eye witness, he would submit that there are serious contradictions in the narration of incident. Hence, in all probabilities those are got up witness. Mr. Choudhary would invite attention of this Court to the statement of eye witness recorded in criminal prosecution against the driver, wherein the witnesses could not disclose involvement of the insured vehicle.

6. Per contra, Mr. Suryawanshi, learned advocate appearing for the claimants supports the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. According to him, mere delay in lodging the FIR would not be a good ground to reject the claim. The informant and other family members of deceased were busy in providing medical treatment to the victim, who was shifted to higher centers for