JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. Since common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, arguments have been heard together and these appeals are de-cided by this common order.

2. For convenience, the facts narrated in civil misc. appeal No. 1394/2023 is taken into consideration. The instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Kotputali, District Jaipur in MAC case No. 289/2021 by which the claim peti- tion submitted by the claimant has been rejected by this common order.

3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant (hereinafter re- ferred to as “claimant”) submits that on 19.12.2020, an accident was caused by a dumper bearing No. RJ-05-GB-6684 and the driver of the aforesaid offending vehicle was driving in a rash and negligent manner wherein Gokul Chand Swami sustained certain injuries and died on the spot and the injured Shayamlal was ad- mitted in a hospital where his head was operated and Hariram the other injured and Ambalal were also admitted in the hospital. The treatment was provided to them for the injuries sustained by them. Counsel submits that the report of the aforesaid incident was lodged on 25.12.2020 and after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of IPC and thereafter, all these claim petitions were submitted before the Tribunal seeking suitable amount of compensation by different claimants.

4. Counsel submits that all the four claims have been rejected by the learned Tribunal on a technical ground of delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR. Counsel submits that a claim petition cannot be rejected on a technical ground rather the same should have been decided on merits by the Tribunal, hence such interference of this Court is warranted.

5. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respon- dents oppose the arguments raised by counsel for the claimant and submitted that no justification has been provided for the inor- dinate delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR and the involvement of the fact is doubtful as the police reached on the spot immediately after the accident and the said offending vehicle was not seized by the police. Hence, involvement of the people appears to be doubt- ful and under these circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed an error in rejecting the claim petitions and the same needs no in- terference of this Court and the instant appeal is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

7. Perusal of the record indicates that the claimant has met with an accident on 19.12.2020 wherein one person Gokul Chand Swami (deceased) has sustain certain injuries and he died on the spot and rest of the injured has sustained injuries and they were admitted in the hospital for their treatment. This fact is not in dis- pute that an FIR of the aforesaid incident has been registered af- ter a delay of 6 days, i.e., 25.12.2020 and this fact is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was also seized on the said day.

8. The Tribunal has recorded a detailed finding about the in- volvement of the vehicle in question in the aforesaid incident and was of the view that when the accident occurred and the police came on the spot, then why the matter was not reported to the police and why the police has not seized the vehicle immediately on the spot. On this ground alone, the claim petition submitted by the claimant has been rejected.

9. In the considered view of this Court, when such unfortunate incident has occurred wherein one person has lost his eyes and three persons have sustained grievous injuries on their vital parts of the body, it was not expected from the family members of the deceased and the injured to lodge an FIR first, and then take their family members to the hospital to s