1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.48/2004 (Mukesh Vs. Hari Ram and ors.) Date of Judgment : 17-04-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr.Harish Sharma, for the appellants. Mr.Aditya Kiran Mathur for Mr.R.K.Mathur, for the respondent/s. Both the parties agreed for final disposal of this appeal at admission stage. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant against the judgment & award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputali vide judgment dated 17.10.2003 whereby claim petition of the appellant was dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the injured was dashed by the Motor Cycle No.RJ 32M 2950 on 2.4.2001 when he was on the side of road, waiting for the bus and thereby sustained 7.35% disability but the learned Tribunal has dismissed the 2 claim only on the ground that the FIR was lodged after one month without considering the case on merits while the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of motor cyclist. It is further submitted that the case deserves to be remanded. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal and submitted that the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced during inquiry and has awarded adequate compensation and calls for no interference. 6. After hearing the rival contentions, and on going through the award,as also, the record of the case, it is revealed that the FIR was lodged in the case after one month of the incident stating the number of motor cycle and the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The cases pertaining to Motor Accident Claims are to be decided on the basis of preponderance of the evidence and the 3 principle of proving beyond all reasonable doubts in criminal cases, is not applicable. In this matter, police has filed charge- sheet against the motor cyclist after due investigation and there is also notice under Sec.133 of the M.V.Act wherein owner of the vehicle had endorsed that the vehicle in question was being driven by him at the time of accident, therefore, matter deserves to be remanded for fresh decision on merits on all the issues. 7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment & award dated 17.10.2003 passed by learned Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded for fresh decision on all the issues after giving opportunity of hearing and leading evidence, if any, by both the parties. Both the parties are directed to remain present before the learned Tribunal on 20.5.2009. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Srawat/- item no.34