Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the MACT dated 31.08.2009 vide which the claim filed by the Petitioner Ramesh Chander Dheer had been dismissed.

2. The case of the Petitioner is that he had suffered an accident on 24.01.1998 while he was on his way to Chandigarh in Maruti Esteem car; this was at 10:30 AM; while he was on the National Highway between Ambala and Chandigarh at Lalru Village all of a sudden an Ambassador car bearing No. CHO 1G 1497 being driven by the driver Jang Bahadur Singh in a rash and negligent manner hit him as a result of which Ambassador Car had lost balance and collided with the Esteem car of the Petitioner; the Petitioner suffered grave and serious injuries. The present claim for compensation was filed admittedly after five years i.e. on 11.02.2002. 3. In the written statement filed by the Respondents, it was denied that the Respondent driver of the Ambassador car was guilty of negligence; contention was that the accident had occurred admittedly on 24.01.1998 and there was no explanation as to why the Petitioner was lodging his claim after an unexplainable delay of five years; contention was that it was a false claim.

4. Admittedly pursuant to this accident, FIR No. 82/108 had been registered by the Punjab Police; pursuant to the FIR investigation was conducted and the Challan under Sections 279/337 Indian Penal Code had been filed against the present Petitioner. Record of the criminal case has been examined. There is no doubt to the proposition that the investigation in a criminal proceedings i.e. FIR, statements recorded by the Investigating Officer in the course of his investigation as also the charge-sheet are documents of relevance and could be read as evidence in proceedings before the MACT. This has been held by a Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pushpa Rana and Ors. reported in 2009 (ACJ) 287. These documents were accordingly read into the evidence by the MACT and there is no fault on this score. The grievance of the Petitioner on this count is without any merit.

5. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the Appellant has been held to be guilty for which there was no evidence; attention has been drawn to the site plan Ex. PW-1/A; it is pointed out that the place of accident had been depicted on mark 'C'; Esteem car is at point 'A' and Ambassador car has been shown at point 'B'; further contention being that a perusal of these documents clearly show that the Ambassador car was coming from the wrong side at the time when it hit the Esteem car being driven by the Appellant; negligence could not in any manner had been attributed to the Petitioner.

6. This submission of the Appellant is without any merit; it is not fortified by the record. The vehicular movement of the traffic in the site plan as depicted by the arrows shows that the Maruti Esteem being driven by the Appellant was going towards Chandigarh; a divider has been shown in the middle of the road; accident had occurred at point 'C' which is on the divider. Submission of the Petitioner that Ambassador vehicle was coming from the wrong side is nowhere depicted in the site plan. The mechanical inspection report of the two vehicles highlighted by learned Counsel for the Appellant also does not support his case; mechanical inspection report of the Maruti vehicle No. 2271 shows that the damage has occurred on the front side i.e. the front light, front channel and front looking glass; the vehicle was not in a fit condition to ply; mechanical inspector report of the Ambassador car has also shown damage on the front side meaning thereby that this was a head-on collusion accident; submission of the Appellant that there was a damage of the Ambassador car on the front and back side is not substantiated; even otherwise, this mechanical inspection report has to be read alongwith the testimony of eye witnesses RW-1 and RW-2 both of whom have come into the witness box. RW-1 was the driver of