Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition, and the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than the delay in lodging it, supported by cogent reasons.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - Instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant against the impugned judgment and award dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bharatpur in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 1587/2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties rejected the claim petition preferred by the claimant appellant on the ground of delay in lodging the F.I.R. and non-production of the medical record with regard to the treatment taken by the injured after the accident.

2. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that it is the admitted position of facts that injured was going on a motorcycle bearing No. RJ-05-3M-9663 in right direction from his village- Awar to Bharatpur but on the way, the driver of motorcycle bearing No. RJ-05-SB-3607 was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident on 22.01.2006 in which the claimant-appellant sustained injuries and thereafter the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 22,70,600/-.

3. Counsel for the claimant-appellant further submits that after rejection of the claim petition by the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant got a copy of the register related to Regular Criminal Case of F.I.R. No. 85/2007 registered with regard to the same accident at Police Station Sewar, District, Bharatpur under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC, which indicates that the driver of the vehicle was convicted vide judgment dated 28.11.2007 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Bharatpur and a fine of Rs. 6,00/- was imposed upon him. Counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that apart from above information, the claimant-appellant received a copy of the admission and discharge ticket of the claimant-appellant issued by the Medical Officer of Government RBM Hospital, Bharatpur, which clearly indicates that the claimant-appellant received injuries in a road traffic accident on 27.01.2007 that is on the fateful day in the aforesaid accident caused by the respondent No. 1, which clearly indicates that the injured has sustained multiple injuries in the said accident.

4. He further submitted that the claim petition of the claimant-appellant has been rejected by the Tribunal on the ground of three months delay in lodging the F.I.R. He also submits that the claimant-appellant was not aware of the niceties of law and therefore mere delay in lodging the F.I.R. cannot be treated as fatal to his claim petition preferred before the Tribunal.

5. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant has placed reliance on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the claimant-appellant but they are not in a position to controvert the above arguments raised by the counsel for the claimant-appellant.

7. I have heard and considered the submissions made at the bar and also gone through the record and judgment dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Tribunal, Bharatpur as well as the other relevant documents available on record.

8. Bare perusal of the documents available on record clearly indicates that the injured-claimant-appellant sustained multiple injuries in road traffic accident occurred on 27.01.2007 and immediately after the accident, the injured was admitted in Government RBM Hospital, Bharatpur where treatment was given to him. The document pertaining to the admission and discharge of the injured in the aforesaid hospital and the genuineness of this document cannot be doubted. Apart form above, charge-sheet was submitted against the respondent No. 1 by the Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and after trial, he was convicted for the afores