JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP TANEJA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 20.01.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer in MAC Case No.172/2013 filed by the respondents-claimants, whereby a sum of Rs.9,18,800/- has been awarded along with an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment.

2. The brief facts of the case as pleaded in the claim petition are that on 21.11.2012, at about 8:30 P.M., Rameshwar @ Ram Niwas (since deceased) was coming from Zanana Hospital to Ajmer City in a Maruti Van - Ambulance (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. RJ01 PA 1676. The said Ambulance was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, by respondent No.3 - Gyansingh (driver of the offending Vehicle), and when they reached near Shastri Nagar Chungi Naka, the ambulance met with an accident with Motor Cycle No. RJ-21 2N 4704 resultantly, the ambulance overturned on the road, leading to death of Rameshwar @ Ram Niwas.

2.1 Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5 and 6, being the claimants, filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal and the said claim petition was partly allowed vide impugned judgment and award dated 20.01.2016 awarding the aforesaid sum in favour of the respondents-claimants.

2.2 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed an illegality in passing the impugned judgment and award. He further submitted that there has been a delay in lodging the First Information report (F.I.R.), the respondent No.3 - Gyansingh was not the actual driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, and the deceased was not working in the hospital and was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized gratuitous passenger.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is just, proper and reasonable and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. While supporting the impugned judgment and award, he has relied upon the following judgments:-

1. Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors., 2011 (4) SCC 693.

2. Smt. Prem Kanwar & Ors. Vs. Aadam & Ors., 2006 WLC (Raj) UC 485.

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Jugraj Singh & Ors., 2008 (6) WLC 870.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.

6. The first contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is that there was a delay in lodging the FIR and therefore, the occurrence of the accident cannot be established.

6.1 From a perusal of record, this Court finds that the accident took place on 21.11.2012 at 8:30 P.M. and the FIR has been lodged on 22.11.2012 at 9:15 A.M. i.e. approximately 13 hours after the accident. Moreso, the FIR was lodged by the relatives namely, Anil and Sunil, who were driving the motorcycle involved in the accident. A perusal of the FIR further reveals that immediately after the accident, the injured persons were taken to the hospital for treatment.

6.2 It is a well settled principle that the primary objective, after an accident, is to provide medical assistance to the injured in order to prevent any further harm. Therefore, if some delay occurs in lodging the FIR while ensuring medical aid to the injured persons, and such delay is satisfactorily explained, the same cannot be treated as fatal to the claim petition.

6.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarain Ors., reported in 2011 (4) SCC 693 has propounded that if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay of lodging the FIR. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are reproduced below:

17. It is