ORDER

Heard on I.A.No.8232/202, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of this appeal.

For the reasons stated in the application duly supported with an affidavit, the same is allowed The delay of 193 days in filing of this appeal is condoned.

This appeal is filed being aggrieved of award dated 25.3.2025 passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Beohari, District Shahdol allowing M.A.C.C No.323/2024 filed by the claimants.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the accident took place on 19.3.2024 as is evident from the FIR (Exhibit P/2) whereas the report was lodged on 9.5.2024 and the offending vehicle was falsely implicated after a delay of almost fifty days from the date of the accident. Referring to the statement of the alleged eyewitness, Lavkesh Shukla, learned counsel points out that his statement, recorded by the concerned police officer on 19.5.2024, is available on record as Exhibit P/17. In the said statement, apart from disclosing the registration number of the offending vehicle i.e., MP18-ZA- 0231, Lavkesh Shukla states that after making inquiries with the injured, he had contacted relatives of the injured. Thereafter, the uncle of the injured, namely, Mansingh, reached the spot where Lavkesh Shukla informed him about the incident and the details of the accident. As per the Naksha Panchayatnama (Exhibit P/7), Mansingh was present at the spot and had sufficient opportunity to inform the police about the accident taking place in a particular manner with a particular vehicle but Mansingh remained silent and he has not even been examined before the Trial Court as a witness. Referring to the testimony of Lavkesh Shukla, who was examined before the Trial Court as Claimant Witness No.2 , learned counsel for the appellant points out several contradictions in his deposition. On the one hand, he states that he is a driver and drives four-wheelers, but, on the date of the accident, he claims to have travelled to Sidhi on a motorcycle. He admits that he does not remember the registration number of the motorcycle. Initially, he describes the motorcycle as a red-coloured Hero Honda, but subsequently changes its model and states that it was a Honda Shine. He also admits that Hero Honda and Honda Shine are manufactured by two different companies. He further admits that he had only noted registration number of the vehicle, which caused the accident and did not know any other details about it. He also admits that Mukesh Singh Gond (since deceased) was not known to him and that he was not acquainted with any of the deceased's family members.

Thus, it is evident that even if Lavkesh Shukla (CW-2) is presumed to have been present at the spot, once he had conveyed all the details of the accident to Mansingh (the deceased's uncle), the claimants ought to have examined Mansingh as a witness. Mansingh, in turn, could have explained why he did not inform the police about the offending vehicle despite being present throughout the proceedings conducted by the police starting from merg intimation to Naksha Panchayatnama and Lash Panchayatnama. The aforesaid contradictions and the delay in lodging of the FIR remain unexplained.

I am conscious of the fact that delay in lodging of the FIR is not fatal in every case. However, in the present case, Lavkesh Shukla (CW-2) states that he contacted the injured's relatives after obtaining a telephone number from the injured. In such circumstances, the call records ought to have been produced. Further, when Lavkesh Shukla (CW-2) claims to have informed Mansingh about the incident, Mansingh ought to have been examined as a witness to explain why the police was not informed about the registration number of the offending vehicle till 9.5.2024. No explanation is offered for the delay of approximately fifty days in lodging of the FIR. In these circumstances, the possibility of the offending vehicle having been subsequently implicated cannot be ruled out.

In that v