ORDER

The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by award dated 04/01/2007 passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Case No.28/2006 whereby the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been dismissed.

The facts of the case in short are as under:-

1. On 19/02/2004, when Shweta Solanki was walking near Hariom Kirana, Suman Colony along with the appellant baby Anchal Chouhan D/o Devendra Chouhan, one scooter bearing registration No.MP-09-J-9842 owned by Bhagwandas Lalchandani, and driven by Prabhakar Mishra dashed her because of which she suffered a fracture on her right thigh and other injuries. After the treatment, she suffered permanent disablement. The scooter was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company. She filed a claim case under guardianship before the MACT claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest.

2. The respondents denied the compensation on the ground that no such motor accident took place on 19/02/2004. Initially, a report was lodged disclosing that she fell in front of the shop and suffered a fracture. Later on, the name of the vehicle was disclosed only to get motor vehicle compensation. There was a delay in lodging the F.I.R. The respondent Insurance Company took a defence that the driver was not having a driving license and he was driving the vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence that came on record came to the conclusion that the claimant did not suffer a fracture because of the motor accident, therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation from the respondents and accordingly dismissed the claim. However, the learned Tribunal has examined the medical record, bills etc. and assessed the compensation of Rs.17,000/- but dismissed the claim on the ground that the false claim was filed against Prabhakar Mishra in order to implicate him in the claim case as well as in the criminal case. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has adopted a hyper-technical approach while entertaining the claim. The baby Anchal was 3 years old at the time of the incident. The accident took place on 19.02.2004 and an F.I.R. (Ex.P/1) was registered on 24.02.2004 under Sections 279, 338 of the I.P.C. in which the scooter bearing registration No.MP-09-J-9842 was disclosed and thereafter non-applicant No.2 Prabhakar Mishra was arrested which is sufficient to award the compensation in favour of the appellant. She was admitted to Prashati Hospital and treated by Dr Thakkar, therefore, there was a delay in lodging the FIR. In support of his contention, Shri Joshi placed reliance on a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Badri Singh Vs. M/s Gautam Travels reported in (2014) ILR (M.P) 161 in which in similar facts and circumstances, the claim case was allowed. Shri Jindal has argued in support of the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the misc. appeal. Appreciation and conclusion 4. In support of the claim, Shweta Solanki examined herself as PW-1. According to her, on 19.02.2004 near about 11 'O' clock when she was going to purchase some stationary items for Hariom Kirana Store along with baby Anchal, one scooter came and dashed baby Anchal due to which she suffered injuries and remained silent for six days. She noted that scooter No. MP-09-J-<br/>

9842 and Prabhakar Mishra was driving the said vehicle and Mahesh was sitting as a pillion rider, both are residents of Mhow. She further deposed that she took the baby Anchal to her mother and said that she fell in the temple and suffered the injuries. Since the person who was sitting on the real seat of the scooter was a known criminal of the same locality, therefore, she was scared and did not give the correct information to the mother of baby Anchal