The main legal point established in the judgment is that FIR registration and police investigation are not always necessary for awarding a claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the victim remains entitled to compensation based on available evidence.

JUDGMENT :- The appellant/claimant has come forward with this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 5-2-1999 passed by 6th Additional Motor Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M.C.C. No. 158/97 dismissing his claim in respect of injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident.

2. The appellant/claimant filed his claim contending that on 15-4-1996 at about 5.45 p.m. when he was standing with his moped at some auto garage of Rachna Nagar Bhopal. At the same time he was dashed by Scooter bearing registration No. M.P.04-A.D. 9978 driven by respondent No. 1 in rash and negligent manner, he fell down and sustained injuries in the lower part of right leg. He was taken to hospital where his MLC report was prepared and fracture of tibia bone was suspected for which he remained admitted there. Subsequently he took the treatment of Dr. Nirbhay Shrivastava and Dr. A. Banerjee between 27-7-1996 to 31-3-1997. He suffered three surgical operations during the treatment of such fracture and spent a huge amount in it. He sustained permanent disability in his leg. The respondent No. 1 was the registered owner of offending vehicle while the same was insured with respondent No. 2. With these pleadings the claim for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- was filed.

3. In reply of respondent No. 1 by admitting the collusion of his scooter with the Luna of appellant, it is stated that appellant sustained some simple injury in it. He took him to the hospital and provided preliminary treatment. Such incident was happened due to fault of the appellant himself. Thus, he is not liable to indemnify the claim of the appellant. On holding any liability the same be saddled against respondent No. 2 the insurer as the scooter was insured with it.

4. In reply of respondent No. 2 the averments of the claim petition are denied. It insured the Scooter of respondent No. 1 bearing registration No. M.O.D. 3543 and not the scooter bearing registration No. M.P.04-A.D.-9978. The incident was the cause and consequence of rash and negligent driving of Luna by the appellant. In any case it is a case of contributory negligence of rider of both the vehicles and they are equally responsible for the incident. Thus, the liability to indemnify the claim could not be saddled against it.

5. After framing the issues, the Tribunal recorded the evidence, on appreciation of the same the claim of the appellant has been dismissed in entirety. Hence, this appeal.

6. Shri K. N. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award on the ground that his claim has been dismissed mainly on the ground that soon after the incident or subsequent to it for more than one year he did not lodge the FIR at the concerning police station. While the registration of criminal case or lodging the first information report is not the condition precedent for entertaining or awarding the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. It is settled proposition that every case is decided on its own merits. Mere in the lack of registration of the offence or its investigation by the police the claim ought not to have been dismissed by the Tribunal. The available evidence should have been considered with proper approach by keeping in view the surrounding circumstances, documents, produced and proved by the appellant but contrary to it in the lack of registration of the offence and by disbelieving the report in writing given by the appellant on 3-5-1997, the claim has been dismissed. While the MLC report prepared on 15-4-1996 by the treating doctor in which aforesaid injuries sustained by the appellant were mentioned, was proved on record but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. He also proved the papers relating to subsequent treatment. Besides this the nexus of such injury with the alleged accident was proved by examining the eye-witnesses of the incident. In such premises the Tribunal committed error in holding that there is no nexus between accident and the aforesaid injury sustained by the appellant.