ORDER

This Miscellenous Apeal is filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved of award dated 2.2.2018 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sihora, District Jabalpur in Motor Vehicle Case No.70/2015.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal after calculating the quantum of compensation has rejected the claim on the ground that the claimants could not prove the factum of accident with the offending vehicle belonging to the non-applicant No.1 and insured with the non- applicant No.2 (respondent Nos.1&2 herein). He also submits that the accident took place on 2.3.2015 when deceased Rajesh Kumar Chourasiya was travelling on his Motorcycle bearing registration No. MP20-ME-7098 from Sihora to Jabalpur and on National Highway No.7, beyond Mohtara Dhaba, a Maruti Omni Car bearing registration No.MP20-HA-4679 had hit the said Motorcycle causing injuries to Rajesh Kumar Chourasiya, who was taken to Sihora Hospital where after preliminary treatment, he was referred to Medical College where he was declared to be dead. Crime No.113/2015 for the offence under Section 304A of the I.P.C was registered at Police Station Gosalpur, District Jabalpur. He further submits that it is an admitted fact that though the accident took place on 2.3.2015 but the FIR Exhibit P/3 was lodged on 9.3.2015 against an unknown vehicle driver. It is also an admitted fact that on 7.4.2015, an application was made by the son of the deceased giving details of the offending vehicle on which the interrogation was carried out and the Final Report Exhibit P/1 was filed against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Sonu S/o.Suresh Sahu.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Claims Tribunal has disbelieved the testimony of the eye-witness to the incident, namely Jakir Husain S/o.Nasir Husain merely on the examination of the Investigating Officer of the case by the non-applicant, namely, Rammilan Patel S/o. Late Shri Mannilal Patel, Assistant Sub Inspector, Police Station Gosalpur, Tahsil Sihora, District Jabalpur. He also submits that if any shortcoming or fault was noted in the investigation then that may be a ground for acquittal in a criminal case but that cannot be a ground to deny just & proper compensation doubting the factum of the accident. The Insurance Company, owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not examine any independent witness while infact the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not appear in the witness box. Similarly, the Insurance Company did neither produce any investigation report nor examined its investigator or the concerned officer to disprove the factum of the accident with the vehicle number of which is admittedly given after about thirty days of the incident.

Learned counsel for the appellant places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Ravi versus Badrinarayan & Others (2011) 4 SCC 693 wherein it is held that the delay in FIR of the accident cannot be so fatal to deny the compensation especially looking to the fact that the priority of the family is to take care of the injured and in case of death to perform death related rituals rather than to rush to the police station to lodge the report.

In the present case, it has come on record that deceased Rajesh Kumar Chourasiya was shifted in Ambulance 108, therefore, the police had intimation about the accident and there was an entry in the Rojnamcha Sanha in regard to the said incident. It has also come on record that the police had recorded the statement of eye-witness Jakir Husain S/o.Nasir Husain under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the said statement is corroborated with his Court statement, therefore, there was no ground to distrust the witness, who had seen the incident happening in front of his eyes.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company submits that it is a case of false implication and, therefore, no