The court emphasized the necessity for a meaningful inquiry under the Motor Vehicles Act and the obligation of the Tribunal to consider all evidence and applications before rendering a decision.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. Heard, Shri Deepak Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Praveen Chandra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. None appeared on behalf of respondents no.2 and 3.

2. This First Appeal From Order (here-in-after referred as F.A.F.O.) has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (here-in-after referred as M.V.Act) against the judgment and order dated 10.03.2023 and award dated 13.03.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.287 of 2017; Aman Kumar Versus Arun Kumar and others by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hardoi.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the First Information Report was lodged with a delay of four months and odd without any explanation for delay because the alleged accident was occurred on 23.04.2017 and the First Information was lodged on 26.08.2017. He further submitted that the First Information Report was lodged alleging the accident from the Motorcycle having Registration No.UP-30-AJ-7710, but the claim petition was filed against the Motorcycle having Registration No.UP-30-AF-7710 and the learned Tribunal has accepted the same on the ground that the application was submitted by the claimant-respondent for correction in the First Information Report, whereas he denied to give the same before the Tribunal. In the First Information Report lodged by the claimant-respondent the final report was filed against the Motorcycle having Registration No.UP-30-AJ-7710. He further submitted that learned Tribunal has also failed to consider the factum of the accident appropriately as there are glaring discrepancies in the description of the respondent-claimant. The respondent-claimant had lodged the First Information Report alleging therein that he was standing alongwith one Desh Raj when the alleged accident occurred and it has also been pleaded in the claim petition and his evidence on affidavit (examination-in-chief) was also filed alongwith the affidavit of claimant-respondent, but the said Desh Raj did not appear in the cross-examination and despite the application moved by the appellant for summoning him for cross-examination, the same was not considered and no orders were passed by the Tribunal before passing the impugned judgment and award. Thus the submission is that the learned Tribunal has failed to make the inquiry as required under Section 168 of the M.V.Act and failed to record any finding after considering as to whether the alleged Motorcycle having Registration No.UP-30-AF-7710 was involved in the accident or not. Thus the impugned judgment and award is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submits that the claimant-respondent had suffered serious injuries in the accident, on account of which his one leg was amputated and he had remained hospitalized for about one month and on account of the mental and physical shock he could not lodge the First Information Report in time and the reason for delay has been given in the First Information Report itself, therefore, the delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground for rejection of claim petition. Even otherwise once the accident and rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle is proved before the Tribunal under the M.V.Act, the proceedings of the criminal case has no bearing on it. He further submits that merely because the final report was filed in regard to the vehicle having Registration No.UP-30-AJ-7710 the involvement of vehicle having Registration No.UP-30-AF-7710 cannot be denied as it could not be found by the investigating officer. The respondent no.2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle has admitted that Ram Sagar was driving the vehicle on the date of accident. Though a plea has been taken that he was driving in the village, but no evidence of the same has been given. Even otherwise he has not disputed the accident and the respondent no.3 i.e. the d