Delay in FIR lodging does not weaken the claimant's case regarding accident liability.

1. This miscellaneous appeal under S.173 of Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dated 6.3.2021 passed by 5th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna, Distt. Satna (M.P.) in MACC No. 494/2018.

2. The appellant has disputed the very factum of accident. The claim of the claimant is that deceased Rambabu Pandey was sitting as a pillion rider along with the driver of the motor cycle, namely, Rahul Singh. The motor cycle was owned by Chandrakant Pandey, who is younger brother of deceased Rambabu Pandey. It is the case of the claimant that the driver of the motor cycle, namely, Rahul Singh by driving the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed a pedestrian, Diwakar Singh, as a result of which the motor cycle slipped and deceased Rambabu Pandey fell down. The pillion rider Rambabu Pandey sustained severe injuries and ultimately, he was shifted to hospital where he succumbed to injuries on the very same day.

3. Challenging the very factum of the accident it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in fact the offending vehicle was planted at a later stage after due deliberations. It is submitted by Mr. Jain that in the merg intimation which was given with regard to the death of the injured (Exh, P / 7) it was mentioned that Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, the real son of the deceased, had informed that the deceased had fallen down from the motor cycle. By relying upon the MLC issued by Birla Hospital, District Satna (Exh. P / 6), it is submitted that even in the said MLC the number of the offending motor cycle was not given, although it was mentioned that the deceased had fallen down from the motor cycle. It is further submitted that although the accident took place on 27.2.2018 but the F.I.R. was lodged on 3.4.2018. The owner of the motor cycle was the real brother of the deceased and, therefore, there was no occasion for the owner of the motor cycle not to come forward and inform about the accident. It is submitted that the claimants after due deliberation have planted the vehicle at a later stage in their merg statements. It is submitted that the registration of the offence and filing of the charge - sheet against the accused would only show that there was some evidence to connect the person with the alleged crime but on the basis of filing of a challan in the court, it cannot be presumed that such person was involved in commission of the crime. To buttress his contention, the counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Setu Bai , ILR 2008 MP 2367 .

4. It is further submitted that Aditya Pandey, who was examined as DW 2, has stated in para 11 of his cross - examination that he did not go to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. but claimed that since the condition of his uncle was serious, therefore, the report was not lodged. He denied the suggestion that since he had not seen the incident, therefore, the report was not lodged.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the claimants that once a merg intimation with regard to the death of the deceased due to fall from a motor cycle was already given to the police, therefore, there was no occasion to lodge a separate F.I.R. If the police was lethargic in conducting the merg inquiry, then the same cannot be made a basis for disbelieving the witnesses. Furthermore, generally the owner of the vehicle would hesitate in coming forward in lodging the F.I.R. against himself or against his driver, for the simple reason that he would not like to be involved in the legal complications.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the par