ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant/non-applicant 3/Insurance Company challenging the award dtd. 19.01.2019 passed by 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No. 132/2014 whereby learned MACT on the respondent 1/claimant’s claim petition awarded an amount of Rs. 1,71,704/- alongwith interest @ of 6% p.a. w.e.f. 19.07.2014 till realisation. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that award has been challenged on the ground of false involvement of the offending vehicle (Tractor No.MP-19-AB-6657) because accident occurred on 10.11.2013 and FIR was lodged on 12.01.2014. He submits that as per insurance company’s investigation, the claimant was sitting on the mudguard of tractor and did not die due to accident allegedly committed by driver of the Tractor. He submits that owner and driver also by filing joint written statement denied to have occurred accident by the Tractor in question however, they contended that non applicant 1-Shivshankar Shukla was having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle which was insured on the date of accident with the non applicant 3. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs.

Badrinarayan and others 2011 ACJ 911, relevant paragraphs 20 & 21 are as under:-

“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 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. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground.

primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.”

3. Upon due consideration of the evidence of claimant-Ramdulare Kushwaha (AW-1), Dr. S.K. Jain (AW-2) and eye witness Sonelal Kushwaha (AW-3), as well as on the basis of FIR (Ex.P/1), learned Tribunal has come to conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor in question and there is no breach of any of the conditions of the policy and accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.1,71,704/-. 4. Apparently, as against the evidence adduced by the claimant, no evidence in rebuttal has been adduced by the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, in my considered op