The delay in lodging the FIR should not be treated as fatal for motor accident claim cases if satisfactory and cogent reasons are demonstrated.

ORDER

Hirdesh, J. - This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company u/S 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by MACT Raisen in claim Case No. MACC/100001/2016 whereby the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.10,78,000/- with interest to respondent No. 1 to 4 on the ground of death of Sunil Nath in motor accident which allegedly took place on 23.10.2015.

2. Brief facts of the case is that according to the claim petition the deceased Sunil nath aged about 35 years was coming from Raisen at the fitful moment on 23.10.2015, offending vehicle Tractor bearing reg. No. MP-38-AB-4101 dashed him while he was standing for urination on the road side at Gram Maser. Thus, Sunil Nath sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries.

3. Thus legal representative of the deceased filed claim petition for granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 58,00,000/- against the appellant as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Driver of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied all the adverse allegations. He further pleaded that no accident occurred by his vehicle and with the collusion of police his vehicle was wrongly implanted for getting compensation. He also pleaded the he possessed valid and effective driving license and vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

4. Appellant Insurance Company also filed reply and denied all the allegations and pleaded that insured vehicle was implanted to extort undue compensation and no accident occurred from the insured vehicle. Even the marg has been registered on the next day of accident. Different stories were mentioned in the Marg as well as in the claim petition. FIR was lodged on 04.11.2015 i.e. after 11 day of accident which also shows that the police played hand in gloves with the claimants and implanted insured vehicle to extort compensation. Insurance Company also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence therefore it is a case of breach of conditions of Insurance Policy, hence Insurance Company be exonerated.

5. Thereafter issues were and evidence was recorded. Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- to the claimants/respondent No.1 to 4.

6. Being aggrieved by this order Insurance Company filed this appeal and submitted that the claimants examined only one eye-witness Pintu (AW-2) who given the deposition on oath that the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 5 by insured vehicle bearing reg. No. MP-38-AB-4101. After examination before the Tribunal appellant -Insurance company came to know that the eye -witness Pintu (AW-2) has already given the deposition before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in which he has deposed that accident did not occur by the driver Gangaram. He was declared hostile before the Magistrate Court and did not identify accused driver Gangaram. Therefore appellant- Insurance Company filed an application for further cross examination of the eye - witnesses (AW-2) but after issuing notice to AW-2 he was not present before the Tribunal and and Tribunal closed the opportunity of the appellant. The conduct of Tribunal is not proper hence on this ground alone the appeal be allowed and award be set aside and matter be remanded back to the Tribunal. It is further submitted that there is delay in filing the FIR. Accident was occurred on 23.10.2015 and deceased died on the same day, marg was recorded on 24.10.2015 and FIR was registered on 04.11.2015 and there is no explanation was given for delaying the FIR. Driver and owner came to the collusion with the claimants, the false FIR was registered. It is further submitted that court has awarded higher side of the amount and amount is just and proper and awarded amount be reduced. On this above grounds this appeal be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated and amount deposited by the Insurance company be refunded with interest.

7. Counsel appearing on behalf