JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, challenging the order and decree dated 23.08.2011 passed in O.P. No.301 of 2006 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by him seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.05.2006 at about 5.00 p.m., while the appellant-claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AEB-6766 from Mahabubnagar to Madigatla, near Kotha Molgera and Patha Molgera, the rider of Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing No.AP-22-H-1450, owned by respondent No.1, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant’s motor cycle, resulting in grievous and multiple injuries. Immediately, the appellant was shifted to the hospital and underwent treatment. A case in Crime No.78 of 2006 was registered, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the rider of the offending vehicle. The appellant-claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition mainly on the ground that the initial medical record (Exs.X1 and X2) indicated that the appellant sustained injuries due to a fall into a pit, and also on the ground of delay of about 24 hours in lodging the FIR, thereby disbelieving the involvement of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal is filed.

3. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition by disbelieving the involvement of the offending vehicle.

4. It is not in dispute that the appellant-claimant sustained injuries in the accident on 16.05.2006. The wound certificate (Ex.A2), discharge summary (Ex.A5), referral card (Ex.A4), and other medical records clearly establish that the appellant-claimant suffered grievous injuries, including head injury and multiple fractures. Thus, the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant stand established. However, the Tribunal disbelieved the case of the appellant-claimant mainly relying upon Exs.X1 and X2, which recorded that the injuries were due to a fall in a pit, and also on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. In the considered opinion of this Court, such an approach adopted by the Tribunal is unsustainable.

5. Firstly, the delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR has been reasonably explained. The evidence on record reveals that immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to the hospital and was undergoing treatment for multiple injuries. His brother, who subsequently lodged the complaint, was preoccupied with arranging medical treatment. In motor accident cases, such delay is neither uncommon nor fatal to the claim. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in drawing an adverse inference solely on the ground of delay.

6. Secondly, the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidentiary value of the charge sheet (Ex.A3). The police, after conducting investigation, filed a charge sheet against the rider of the offending vehicle attributing rash and negligent driving. A charge sheet, though not conclusive, is a relevant piece of evidence and carries significant probative value in claim proceedings, particularly when there is no rebuttal. In the present case, the respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence to rebut the same. Hence, the Tribunal ought to have accorded due weight to the said document.

7. Thirdly, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on Exs.X1 and X2 to