In cases of hit and run accidents, delay in lodging FIR due to the victim's condition does not defeat the claim. Compensation for future prospects and non-pecuniary damages should be awarded in serious cases of injury.

Veerender Singh Siradhana, J.

1. The above noted two appeals are directed against the same award dated 10th February, 2010, and therefore, have been taken up for final adjudication at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties by this common order.

2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts are that the claimant-Bhagchand suffered severe injuries in an accident on 20th July, 2006, while he was travelling in a car with his friend and the car was hit by the offending truck, which was driven negligently and carelessly. A report of the accident was entered in the daily diary (Roznamcha) on 21st July, 2006. The claimant-Bhagchand suffered severe injuries and was discharged on 30th July, 2006, and lodged an FIR of the accident on 8th January, 2007.

3. It is pleaded case of the claimant-Bhagchand that the proceedings were drawn for the accident against an unknown truck and the claim petition was also instituted accordingly. However, having learnt about the registration number of the offending vehicle, the amended claim petition was filed on 6th November, 2007. The Tribunal on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced made the claim of compensation vide impugned award dated 10th February, 2010, for an amount of Rs. 5,35,022 (Rupees five lac thirty five thousand twenty two), with interest @ 8% per annum provided the amount of compensation was paid within two months of the award and failure to do so would attract interest have at the rate of 9%. The Insurance Company has preferred the appeal assailing the findings arrived at by the Tribunal on issue number 1, stating that the truck with the registration number RJ-21-GA-04945, has been falsely implicated in the accident only for the purpose of the claim for the FIR of the accident was lodged almost after six months.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. R.P. Vijay, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the memo of appeal asserted that the delay in lodging of the FIR leads to conclusion that the vehicle insured by the appellant-Insurance Company has been falsely implicated after a due deliberation. The award has not been challenged on any other grounds. The claimant-Bhagchand has preferred the connected appeal with the prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded for the Tribunal fell in gross error in not awarding any compensation on account of 'future prospects'.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant-Bhagchand referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent pronouncement in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar & Anr., (2014) 5 SCC 330, asserted that damages under the non-pecuniary heads have not been allowed, and thus, the Tribunal committed gross error in not awarding just compensation as contemplated under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act of 1988'). According to the learned counsel, the delay caused in the lodging of the FIR cannot be a ground to defeat the claim of the claimant-appellant for it is a case of hit and run, and the Tribunal committed no error in declining the defence of the Insurance Company. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors., (2011) 3 SCC 646.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record and the impugned award as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

7. In the case of Kusum Lata (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the para 5 and 8, held thus:-

"When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal in its award dated 14.6.2006 framed three issues for adjudication. Of those three issues, since the Tribunal came to a finding against the appellants on the first issue, the other findings of the Tribunal in the second and third issue were, according to Tribunal, of no avail of the appellants. On the first issue t