1. - The appellant Jansi Ram has challenged the judgment dated 10.4.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge, SC/ST Cases Court) Dausa, whereby the learned counsel has dismissed his claim petition.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 15.5.2004 around 7:00 PM while the claimant-appellant was going to his home on foot, he was hit by a rashly and negligently driven motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ29-1M-619 in front of Govt. Hospital, Lalsot Road, Dausa. Consequently he received grievous injuries causing his permanent disability. The claimant filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. However, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition by impugned award dated 10.4.2007. Hence this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that in the notice given to the owner, under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he had clearly admitted that the offending vehicle was being driven by Vinod Kumar and had met with an accident. According to the learned counsel, once such an admission is made, there is no reasonable ground for the Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition.

4. On the other hand Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel for Insurance Company, has strenuously contended that the offending vehicle had been falsely implicated in the present case. Secondly that there is a contradiction between the testimony of the claimant and of the eye-witness, namely Radhakishan (AW-2). Thirdly, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that the FIR was delayed by nine days despite the fact that the alleged accident had taken place in front of the hospital where a police choki was readily available. Fourthly, the learned Tribunal has meticulously analysed the evidence, and after giving cogent reasons has dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, the impugned award does not deserve to be interfered with.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award.

6. Merely because the owner of the offending vehicle made an admission that his vehicle had met with an accident, it would not prevent the learned Tribunal from dismissing the claim petition. After all, the learned Tribunal is expected to analyse the entire evidence and to adjudicate upon the issues framed by it. Instances are not lacking when a claim petition has been filed with collusion between the claimant and the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal is duty bound to critically analyse the evidence produced before it. Hence the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is unacceptable.

7. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that according to the appellant he had met with an accident in front of the hospital. According to him, there was a police choki available at the hospital. Despite the availability of the police choki, still the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of nine days. Although the claimant has tried to explain the delay by claiming that initially the driver of the offending vehicle had agreed to pay his expenses, but subsequently he declined to do so. It is only after his declining to bear the expenses that he lodged the FIR. However, the claimant does not give any details as to when such an agreement was reached between them. According to his statement the driver of the offending vehicle had run away from the scene of the accident. Thus, it was imperative for him to inform the learned Tribunal as to when the driver of the offending vehicle came back, and promised him to bear the expenses. However, his testimony is bereft of any details.

8. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that there is a clear-cut contradiction between the testimony of claimant and the testimony of the eye-witness, Radhakishan (AW-2). While, according to the claimant the driver of the offending vehicle, Vinod Kumar, had run away from the scene of the accident, according to Radhakishan (AW-2) he and th