The main legal point established is the reliance on medical evidence, witness testimony, and police statements to determine the involvement of a vehicle in an accident, as well as the consideration of a reasonable explanation for the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 10.10.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur Metropolitan in Claim Case No. 133/2015(3503/2015) whereby the claim petition of the claimants-appellants seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by Bansilal, was rejected.

2. A claim petition was filed by the injured- Bansilal before the Tribunal claiming compensation under various heads on account of grievous injuries suffered by him in the accident which occurred on 07.05.2014. During the pendency of the claim petition, he (Bansilal) died and Legal Representatives were brought on record.

3. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the claimants-appellants holding that the vehicle Bolero Camper bearing Registration No. RJ-19-GD-1527 driven by the respondent No.1, which was insured with the respondent No.3, was not involved in the accident causing injuries to Bansilal. Since the findings on Issue Nos. 1 & 2 were against the claimants-appellants, the findings on Issue Nos. 3, 4 & 5 were adjudged against the claimants-appellants and, therefore, no amount of compensation was awarded in their favour.

4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and decided.

5. Appellant No.2- Mr. Sandeep Bishnoi, who has appeared in person submits that on 07.05.2014 at around 8.30 P.M., when his father-Bansilal was going on motorcycle from Jodhpur to Jaleli to meet his relative, a Balero Camper No. RJ-19-GD-1527 coming from the opposite direction dashed the motorcycle of Bansilal. In the accident, Bansilal sustained grievous injuries on the head and was taken to the hospital by Bagaram and Jagdish who were also traveling with Bansilal on another motorcycle. The injured -Bansilal was taken to the Suncity Hospital in the same Bolero Camper from which he met with the accident. Due to critical condition, Bansilal was referred from Suncity Hospital to Manidhari Hospital and from there, he was shifted to Sterling Hospital at Ahmedabad on the next day. Bagaram and Jagdish accompanied the injured (Bansilal) to Ahmedabad. He further submits that when the position of the injured Bansilal improved, Bagaram and Jagdish came back to Jodhpur and Bagaram lodged the First Information Report on 20.05.2014. The appellant submits that chronology of events shows that the accident occurred with the vehicle which was insured with the respondent - Insurance company and the F.I.R. was registered after a period of 13 days on account of the fact that Bagaram accompanied the injured -Bansilal to Ahmedabad, where he was critically ill. The appellant contends that the findings of the Tribunal recorded on Issue Nos. 1 & 2 are based on conjectures. He further submits that in the case summary/ discharged tickets issued by the Manidhari Hospital, Jodhpur it was mentioned that Bansilal had suffered head injury with acute massive subdural hematoma in left temporo-parietal occipital and frontal region & midline shift, left temporo-parietal Haemorrhagic contusions along with fracture of right temporal and parietal bones. In the wake of these injuries, a person (Bansilal) cannot speak. Bansilal became unconscious immediately on the spot after the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has grossly erred while recording the finding that on 07.05.2014 in Manidhari Hospital Bansilal stated that injuries were sustained on account of the bike having slipped. The appellant further contends that although, Bansilal was taken to the Suncity Hospital in the same Bolero Camper but the driver of the said vehicle fled away from the Suncity Hospital and thus, it can safely be presumed that Bagaram and Jagdish rightly identified the vehicle in question as well as its driver. He further argues that delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition. Moreover, the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has been