ORDER

1. This appeal by the claimant under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is arising out of the award dated 8.7.2008 passed by 13th Additional MACT, Indore in claim case No.44/2007 seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.1.2004 at 10.15 a.m appellant /claimant with her son was going to Nirmal hospital, Indore on a motor cycle. His sons was riding the motor cycle and she was sitting behind the motor cycle. When they reached near Kalani nagar, Nirmal hospital then a scooter bearing registration no.MP-09-JP-0346 which was being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle due to which she fell down and received injuries on her left hand and suffered fracture. She was admitted in Nirmal hospital Indore and discharged from the hospital on 13.1.2004. She filed a claim petition against the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. She received 17% permanent disability.

3. Respondents/driver and owner/insurance company of the offending vehicle filed their written statement. Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed issues and recorded evidence of both parties. Tribunal after hearing counsel for both parties and on appreciation of evidence dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant. Being aggrieved by the said order, appellant/claimant has filed this appeal on the ground that Tribunal has committed error in holding that the accident had not occurred.

4. Counsel for the appellant submits that Tribunal has committed error in dismissing the claim by holding that in the FIR the registration number of the offending vehicle was mentioned as MP-09-JN-6381 whereas in the final report the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as MP-09-JP-0346 and that the offending vehicle had not caused any accident. Hence, prayed for setting aside the impugned award.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. It is settled law that if police registered the case against the driver of the offending vehicle and after due investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle, then the Tribunal can presume guilt of the driver of the offending vehicle. But this presumption can be rebutted. It is the duty of the party who claimed that accident had not caused by the offending vehicle. It may be rebutted by adducing direct evidence or on the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants.

8. In the present case claimant lodged FIR Ex.P/3 which was registered on 13.1.2004 in which the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as MP-09-JN-6381. This FIR was written by the police on the basis of the statement of claimant Malini Sharma and Rahul Sharma, son of Malini Sharma. Ex.P/2 is again another FIR in which the registration number of the offending vehicle is also mentioned as MP-09-JN-6381. This FIR was also written by the police on the basis of the statement of claimant Malini Sharma and Rahul Sharma, the son of Malini Sharma, injured. However, in the final report Ex.P/1 the registration number of the offending vehicle is mentioned as MP-09-JP-0346. So it was the duty of the claimant to explain as to how and why the registration number of the offending vehicle was changed in the final report.

9. It is true that claimant's case is decided on its own facts and evidence. In the case of R.P Gautam v. R.N.M Singh and another - AIR 2008 MP 68, it is held that it is settled principle of law that every civil case is decided on its own facts and evidence without influencing the paper and decision of the criminal case. In such premises, registration of the offence and police investigation is not a condition precedent for awarding the claim.

10. In the present case, claimant filed the FIR before the police station Ex.P/2 & P/3 and mentione