1. Present appeal has been filed under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the award dated 22.7.2015 passed in Claim Case No. 53/2015, by which the MACT, Barwani.

2. Present appellant met with an accident on 17.3.2013 at 7.30 p.m. by Maruti Van bearing registration No. MP-09-BB-0126 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2. Due to the said accident, the appellant received internal injuries and immediately admitted in the primary health centre, Rajpur. The accident was reported to the police by way of MLC, thereafter, he was referred to the District Hospital, Barwani and further referred to Indore. The appellant was hospitalÁed in Mayank Hospital for the period from 18.3.2013 to 26.3.2013. The FIR was recorded on 28.3.2013 under sections 279 and 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant filed claim case before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs. 12,50,000/-. After notice, the defendant No. 1 and 2 appeared and did not dispute the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and further submitted that the vehicle was insured and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

3. Respondent No. 3 / Insurance Company filed written statement denying liability by alleging violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and false implication of the offending vehicle as there was delay in lodging FIR.

4. Appellant examined himself as PW1 and one Alok as PW2. In rebuttal, the respondents did not examined any witness. The claimant got exhibited 105 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-105 in respect of treatment and expenditure.

5. Learned MACT, after appreciating the evidence on record assessed the compensation of Rs. 2,31,311/- along with interest, but dismissed the claim on the ground of delay in lodging FIR. According to the MACT, there was delay in filing FIR, therefore, suspicion arises as to why FIR was not lodged immediately after the accident. Learned MACT has also disbelieved the statement of Alok (PW2 ), who claimed himself to be eye witness. Vide award dated 22.7.2015, entire claim case has been dismissed by learned MACT.

6. The only issue involved in this appeal is whether learned MACT has rightly dismissed the claim on account of delay in lodging FIR.

7. Claimant Kapil PW1 has stated that due to the said road accident, he suffered internal injuries and he immediately approached the primary health centre, Rajpur and since the injuries were serious in nature, therefore, he was referred to District Hospital, Barwani. The doctor was of the opinion that spleen has ruptured and required to be removed, thereafter, he was referred to hospital at Indore. He got admitted in Mayank Hospital for the period from 18.3.2013 and remained there upto 26.3.2013. In respect of medical treatment, he produced as many 106 documents, therefore, there is no dispute that after the accident, he remained under treatment till 26.3.2013 and after the discharge from the hospital, he lodged FIR on 28.3.2013. In column 8 of the FIR, reason for delay is written as ^^bZykt gsrq ckgj bUnkSj tkus ls okil vkus ds cknA**

8. In MLC Ex-P-6 and Ex.-P-7, there is mention about admission of the appellant due to the injuries received in road accident. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted in primary health centre and thereafter he got admitted in Mayank Hospital, Indore from 18.3.2013 to 26.3.2013, therefore, it cannot be said that there was inordinate delay in lodging FIR. The appellant/claimant has successfully explained the delay. In the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others, reported in 2011 ACJ 911, Hon'ble apex Court has found that in the case of road accident, delay of three months in lodging FIR is justified. For the sake of reference, paras 20 to 22 are reproduced below :

“20 It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Stati