ORDER

This miscellaneous appeal by the insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act is arising out of the award dated 29.03.2008 passed by 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dewas in claim case No.82/2007 on account of false involvement of vehicle for seeking --2-- compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 preferred an application alleging that on 10.03.2007 when he was going along with his friend, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MP-41B-6378 driven by respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.3 and insured with appellant, dashed him due to which he suffered grievous injuries.

Alleging permanent disablement, this application was filed seeking compensation on various grounds.

3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were proceeded ex-parte whereas the appellant filed their written statement denying the allegations and pleaded that no accident was caused by the insured vehicle. Tribunal after framing issues and taking evidence passed an award in favour of respondent No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,06,382/- with interest from the date of filing of the petition till realization against the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally.

4. Being aggrieved by the award, appellant has filed this appeal by submitting that tribunal has grossly erred in not considering the fact that MLC of the respondent No.1 was recorded on the date of accident and on the same date matter was also informed to the concerned police station then there was no reason for the applicant or the police to have recorded F.I.R. after lapse of 3 months from the date of accident. Tribunal has erred in appreciating the evidence on this issue very cursorily, whereas in such cases the evidence has to be examined minutely, as there is no explanation offered by the claimant/respondent No.1 as to how and why the F.I.R. was registered after three months of the accident. So he submitted that there is a better chance for false involvement of the offending vehicle for seeking compensation and prays for setting aside --3-- the award.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record of the tribunal, it is not disputed by the insurance company that MLC of the respondent No.1 was recorded on the date of accident and on the same day matter was informed to the concerned police station.

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that it is the duty of the claimant to explain the delay of three months in lodging F.I.R. In the claim cases although lodging of F.I.R. is fatal in deciding matter of accident case. Delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal in such proceeding if claimant is able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reason for it. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 and 21 has held 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 toimplicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging