JUDGMENT

1. The captioned appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and award dated 02.04.2012 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Morbi in MACP No.49/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.5,02,000/- as a compensation along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. The facts are not under challenge, therefore, for the sake of brevity, the same are not reproduced herein.

2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.

3. Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/insurance company vehemently submitted that the accident in question had occurred on 21.04.2009; however, the FIR came to be lodged on 09.05.2009. He further submitted that the reason for the delay was not explained, therefore, the FIR cannot be treated as the gospel truth. The learned Tribunal has ignored this material fact. In place of allowing the claim petition, the learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. He further submitted that the captioned appeal is liable to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, Mr. N.R. Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants vehemently submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award. Merely the delay in lodging the FIR would not suffice to disbelieve the case of the claimants. He further submitted that since in the accident, Nanjibhai Raiyabhai Dabhi lost his life and all the family members were busy in the last rites of the deceased, therefore, the FIR could not be lodged at the earliest.

5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and having gone through the record, it is to be noted that the factum of accident, manner of occurrence of accident, age and occupation of the deceased are not under challenge. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the impugned judgment and award only on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The accident took place on 21.04.2009, wherein Nanjibhai Raiyabhai Dabhi sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. Perusal of the record further transpires that the police has sent the Yadi on the very same day, which was proved at Exh.39. The panchanama of place of witness is also proved on record at Exh.40. The PM report is also proved at Exh.42. The original claimants have also examined one-Hiteshkumar Shantilal Thoriya as PW-2 at Exh.38. He was the eye-witness to the accident and he has proved that on 21.04.2009, the rider of the motorcycle came by driving the motorcycle bearing registration no.GJ.6AK.3674 in rash and negligent manner, from the wrong side and hit said Nanjibhai Raiyabhai Dabhi and thereafter, he fled away from the spot. He was cross-examined but nothing adverse came on record. Thus, in view of the version of the eye-witness, the factum of occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the deceased and the death of the deceased on account of injuries sustained in the said accident cannot be disbelieved. Mere delay in filing the FIR cannot be a ground to reject the claim petition. In case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & Ors., reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, the Hon’ble Apex Court in para nos.17, 18 and 19, has observed as under:-

“17. It is well settled that delay in lodging the 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 station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to