IMPORTANT POINT
Delay in lodging an FIR in motor accident claims does not negate the right to compensation if justified, and the assessment of compensation must be based on credible evidence of income and injuries.

JUDGMENT :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 02.06.2015 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Parbatsar, District Nagaur (‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.33/2012, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,96,321/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. in favour of claimant/cross-objector for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the appellant/non-claimant No.3.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimant, Sitaram Chouhan filed a claim petition on 18.02.2012 claiming compensation of Rs.39,57,000/- alleging therein that on 07.01.2012 while the claimant was going on his motorcycle (RJ- 21-5M-1355) with pillion rider Mewaram from Jiliya to Karkedi, when the driver/non-claimant No.2 of the offending vehicle (Mini Truck No.RJ-37-GA-0139) while plying the vehicle rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle, as a result of which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of said mini truck. At the time of accident, the vehicle was insured with appellant/nonclaimant No.3 and non-claimant No.1 was the registered owner of the vehicle. The claimant on account of injuries received by him in the accident filed claim petition claiming compensation to tune of Rs.39,57,000/-. An FIR of the said accident was also lodged on 10.01.2012 against the driver of the mini truck for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 134/187 of M.V. Act, wherein after investigation charge sheet was filed against the driver (Ex.3) in the competent court.

3. On receipt of the summons of the claim petition, nonclaimant No.1/registered owner of the offending vehicle filed reply while refuting the claim laid. It was averred by the non-claimant No.1 that a false claim has been laid and no accident in fact had taken place. It was further averred that the driver of the vehicle was having valid and effective licence and at the time of accident the vehicle was registered with non-claimant No.3.

4. On behalf of non-claimant No.2/driver of the offending vehicle, it was alleged that no accident had taken place and false claim petition was filed and a prayer for dismissing the claim petition was made. On behalf of appellant/non-claimant No.3, the facts stated in the claim petition were denied. In the reply, it was urged on behalf of appellant that the claimant has not suffered any permanent disability. It was admitted by the insurance company that on the relevant day, the vehicle was insured with it, however, involvement of the vehicle in question was questioned. An objection with regard to driving of the offending vehicle not having valid and effective licence was also taken and it was averred that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant himself. A prayer for rejection of the claim petition was made.

5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame five issues including relief, which inter-alia reads as under:

^^1- vk;k fnukad 07-07-2012 dks okgu la[;k vkj-ts- 37 th, 0139 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 2 us okgu dk rst xfr ,oa vlko/kkuh ls pykdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh] ftlds dkj.k izkFkhZ lhrkjke ds pksVsa dkfjr gqbZ\

2- vk;k foi{kh la[;k&02 okgu pkyd foi{kh la[;k&1 okgu Lokeh ds fu;kstu esa dk;Z dj jgk Fkk vkSj blh fu;kstudky esa mDr nq/kZVuk dkfjr gqbZ gS\

3- vk;k foi{khx.k dh vksj izLrqr izkjfEHkd vkifRr;ksa ,oa fo'ks"k fooj.k esa vafdr rF;ksa dk D;k izHkko gS\

4- vk;k izkFkhZ] foi{khx.k ls 39]57]000@& :i;s izfrdj ds :i esa izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS] vkSj ;fn gS rks fdl fdl foi{kh ls vkSj fdruh fdruh jkf'k\

5- vuqrks"k\^^

6. The claimant, in support of his claim, in oral evidence examined himself as AW.1 and in documentary evidence 78 documents were exhibited. The non-claimant No.3/appellant herein examined NAW.1 Anand K.S. Rana and i