IMPORTANT POINT
The delay in lodging an FIR does not invalidate a motor accident compensation claim if satisfactorily explained, and the tribunal must evaluate evidence based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than strict proof.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

1. Heard Sri S.D. Ojha and Sri Som Dutt Pandey, learned counsels for the claimants-appellants and Sri Shreyas Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.1, who is owner of the vehicle and Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2, New India Assurance Company Ltd. No one is present on behalf of respondent no.3, driver of the vehicle.

2. This First Appeal From Order has been filed on behalf of claimants-appellants against the judgment and order dated 04.09.2018 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.10/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in MACP No.178 of 2016 (Smt. Preeti Pandey and others vs. Mohit Khandelwal and others), by which claim petition filed by claimants-appellants was rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants-appellants have filed claim petition under Section 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.54,62,000/-along with 12 per cent interest on account of death of Sunil Kumar Pandey, who died in the road accident on 26.12.2015. It was the case of claimants before the claims tribunal that on fateful day 26.12.2015 at 2:45 p.m. the deceased Sunil Kumar Pandey with his motorcycle along with Padam Sharma was standing left patri of the road near culvert (pullia) at Kichha Road, P.S. Rudrapur, District Udhampur when the offending car hit the deceased and his motorcycle from back side. The accident was caused by driver of offending car bearing no.UK06V-7805 which was being driven by its driver very rashly and negligently. The FIR was lodged on 28.12.2015 at 9:30 pm in Police Station Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar against the driver of offending car and case was registered as Case Crime No.542 of 2015 under Sections 279, 304A IPC. The Investigating Officer after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the driver of the insured car. The claimants had produced one Padam Sharma as PW2, who was an eye witness of the accident to prove the factum of accident.

4. The claim petition was contested by owner of vehicle as well as insurer of vehicle denying rash and negligent driving of driver. The factum of accident was not disputed by the owner and insurer of offending car.

5. The claims tribunal has framed four issues for determination as rash and negligent driving of car driver, validity of driving licence of car driver, insurance of car and quantum of compensation and liability of payment.

6. The claims tribunal after considering the evidence and materials, which are available on record has dismissed the claim petition vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2018, which is impugned in the present appeal.

7. The claims tribunal has recorded the findings while deciding the issue no.1 that the first information report was lodged after two days of the accident on 28.12.2015 whereas, the accident occurred on 26.12.2015 and the claimants failed to explain the delay in lodging the first information report. The claims tribunal has further recorded the finding that the owner of the vehicle is resident of District Bareilly whereas the vehicle was insured at the office of insurance company at Allahabad as such there must be some connection of owner to Allahabad. The claimants are also resident of Allahabad and it appears that the claimants with the collusion of owner of vehicle has planted the insured car in the accident only to get compensation from the respondent insurance company. The claims tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the involvement of insured car in the accident was not proved.

8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the claims tribunal has recorded a perverse finding of fact while dismissing the claim petition. The FIR was lodged just after two days of the accident and the delay has already been explained by the claimants before the claims tribunal. The informant who appeared as PW2 before the claims tribunal has stated that he was busy in providing