T.S. Doabia, J. --1. Suresh Babu Nath claimant has preferred this appeal against the award given by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Gwalior, whereby the Tribunal concluded that he was not entitled to claim any compensation as there was no negligence on the part of the State or its employees. After recording this finding, a further direction has also been given that the appellant is to refund a sum of Rs. 7,500/- received by him towards no fault liability.

2. The brief facts of this case are as under.

3. It is alleged that an accident took place in the early hours of the morning of 26th January, 1988. The manner in which the accident took place was disputed by both the sides. The vehicle which was involved in the accident bears registration No. CPZ 52. This jeep is owned by the State Government. The driver of this vehicle was one Hargovind. According to him, he had parked this vehicle near the residence of Tehsildar on the left side of the road. He had gone to inform the Tahsildar about his arrival. When he came back, he found that a scooter had hit the jeep from the back. The number of the scooter has not been given by him. It is further stated by Hargovind that he rebuked the driver of the scooter and its two other occupants. They expressed regrets. According to him, Ramlakhan who was driving the scooter informed him that his brother had died on the previous day in the Jail and on account of this mental strain he was unable to notice the stationary jeep. It is further stated by the driver of the Jeep that he gave lift to Ramlakhan and his companion out of compassion, including the appellant. Ramlakhan was dropped near the jail whereas Suresh Babu was dropped near the house of his friend. According to the driver of the Jeep there was a third man also on the scooter.

4. The case put up by the claimant is, that the accident did not take place in the manner suggested by the driver of the Jeep. The driver of the Jeep has been said to be solely responsible for the accident. It is alleged that the jeep was coming at high speed. It hit the scooter and dragged it to about 15 feet. It is stated that injuries were sustained by the appellant in the process.

5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, did not believe the story put forward by the claimants. The reasons given were that even though the accident had taken place on 26th January, 1988 in the early hours no effort was made to lodge any report with the police authorities for about three weeks. The fact that claimant is trained in law was taken note of. An inference was drawn that had the accident taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep then the appellant would have immediately lodged the report with the police authorities. The fact that the report was lodged after three weeks prevailed upon the Claims Tribunal to come to conclusion that the story put forward by the claimant is not correct. The further fact was that even though the appellant stated that he visited the doctor on the next date and found that there is a fracture on the tibia of the right limb even then no report was lodged with the police authorities. The belated first information report was taken as a factor to come to a conclusion that an effort has been made to bring into existence some evidence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence on the record and also oral statements made by the claim and his witnesses. The statement of the appellant who was examined as P.W. 4 is in para 10 of his statement - 'MERI GADI MAIN TAKKAR LAGGI THEE'. On a plain reading of this statement, it becomes apparent that it is the appellant who hit the jeep and not vice-versa. The learned counsel for the appellant wants this line to be read in a manner to suggest that it is the jeep which struck the scooter. This is not possible in view of the plain meaning decipherable from the statement referred to above.

7. Even driver of the scooter, Ramlakhan has made no