Delay in lodging FIR does not invalidate claims if justified by circumstances; compensation awards upheld based on evidence.

JUDGMENT :

REKHA BORANA, J.

1. The present appeals have been filed aggrieved of judgment and Award dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case Nos.357/2013 and 358/2013 respectively whereby the claim petitions as preferred by the claimants stood allowed.

2. The facts as averred in the claim petitions are that on 01.12.2012 one Gopal Bohra alongwith his sister Mamta, brother-in-law Manoj, and four nephew and niece, was travelling from Sridungargarh to Napasar in vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-07-GA-2840. At about 9:30 am, when they reached near Village Gusaisar on National Highway No.11, a Bolero bearing registration No.RJ-07-GB-1554, being driven rashly and negligently, while coming from the opposite side, took a sudden cut. Driver Gopal Bohra tried to avoid a collision and in the attempt, the vehicle overturned. Manoj and Mamta succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment, on 02.12.2012 and 10.12.2012 respectively. FIR No.123/2012 was registered on 10.12.2012 at Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner pertaining to the said incident.

3. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date of accident.

4. It is relevant to note here that Manoj and Mamta were husband and wife. Both the claim petitions were filed by their minor children through their maternal grandmother.

5. After evaluating the evidence, an award amount of Rs.21,60,534/- was granted as compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case No.357/2013 pertaining to the death of Manoj i.e. father of the claimants.

6. An award of Rs.6,34,800/- was awarded in claim petition No.358/2013 pertaining to the death of Mamta, the mother of the claimants.

7. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @7% per annum on the award amount with effect from 25.09.2013 i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition.

8. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved of the above awards.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that it was a clear case of fake involvement of vehicle as the FIR qua accident of 01.12.2012 was lodged on 10.12.2012 and no reason for the said delay was assigned. The FIR was lodged by Gopal Bohra and as per the said first information, the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of an unknown Pickup. No number of the alleged vehicle was reflected in the FIR. Meaning thereby, the vehicle in question was subsequently implicated.

10. Learned counsel submits that the fact of the vehicle been falsely implicated is also fortified from the report of the Investigating Officer of the Insurance Company (Exhibit NW-1) as per which, the claimants and owner of the offending vehicle were residents of the same colony and were acquainted with each other.

11. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of alleged eyewitness Rauram (AW-3) was a concocted one. The said witness deposed that he followed the offending vehicle after the accident and even noted the number of the vehicle and the name of the driver. Further that, after chasing the offending vehicle for a while, he returned to the site and informed the police about the particulars of the offending vehicle. In the said circumstances, it is incomprehensible as to why the FIR was not lodged/registered on the same date and further, even when it was lodged, why was it against an unknown vehicle ?

12. Further, Rauram (AW-3), in his examination, stated that there was a collision between the