1. - The appellant, Shabbeer Khan, is aggrieved by the award dated 30.10.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chomu, District Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are on 13.7.2010, Shabbeer Khan was going to court at Bani Park through Indira Bazar, as a pedestrian, on the correct side of the road. When he reached near Pashu Chikitsalaya, at about 11:30 AM, a car bearing Registration No. RJ-14-CC-7869, being driven rashly and negligently, came from opposite direction i.e. from Gopinath Marg and hit him. Consequently, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Thereafter, the appellant was taken to hospital by the same car. Due to the injuries sustained by him, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. Hence, this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently raised the following contentions before this Court: firstly, the learned Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim petition on the ground that the FIR was delayed almost by two months. After all, on the date of accident i.e. on 13.7.2010, a Rojnamcha Report has been registered by the police. Thus, the report was given to the police and according to Rojnamcha, an accident did occurred with a car.Secondly, since the appellant has suffered a fracture of both bones of the right leg, and his jaw, he was not in a position to lodge the FIR immediately. Since, the delay has been explained by the appellant, the claim petition could not have been rejected on the ground of inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR. Thirdly, the owner Gaurav Sharma has himself admitted that the accident did take place with his vehicle. Moreover, he has confessed to the offence during the criminal trial. Therefore, the learned Tribunal should have granted the compensation as prayed by the appellant. Lastly, no evidence was led by the respondent-owner. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in dismissing the claim petition. In order to buttress his contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the cases of Bhanwar Lal Verma v. Sharad Tholia & Ors., 2007 R.A.R. 142 (Raj.) , Kusum Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors., MACD 2011 (SC) 42 : 2011 (1) DNJ (SC) 304 , Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors., MACD 2011 (SC) 46 : 2011 (1) DNJ (SC) 227 and Bimla Devi & Ors. v. Himachal Road Trans. Corpn. & Ors., 2009 ACJ 1725 .

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award and considered the case law cited at the bar.

5. Although, it is true that a delay in lodging of an FIR is not always fatal to the case of the claimant, but the delay needs to be explained by the claimant. In case, there is a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR, the FIR cannot be said to be inordinately delayed. Therefore, in such a case, notwithstanding the alleged delay, case of the claimant has to be adjudicated properly.

6. Admittedly, in the present case, the alleged accident took place on 13.7.2010, yet the FIR was not lodged till 13.9.2010, i.e. exactly after two months. According to the appellant himself, on 13.7.2010, when the police reached the hospital, he gave a statement to them. On the basis of that statement, a Rojnamcha was written. However, in the Rojnamcha, he did not give the number of the offending vehicle. Moreover, he did not mention the fact that his daughter was with him when the alleged accident took place. Moreover, according to the discharge ticket, he was discharged from the hospital, after three days. Yet there is a studied silence on his part for one month and twenty-seven days. The silence has not been explained by him in his testimony before the learned Tribunal. Because of his silence, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that the delay in lodging o