FAO No. 721 of 2007 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh FAO No. 721 of 2007 Date of decision: 22.12.2008 Rajesh Kumar ......Appellant Versus Babu Lal and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Satish Garg, Advocate for Mr.Minderjeet Yadav, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.Vandana Malhotra, Advocate, for New India Insurance Company. **** JUDGMENT SABINA, J. This is an appeal against the award dated 18.4.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant, claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident on 22.7.2002 , was dismissed. The case of the appellant, as stated in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 22.7.2002 he was present by the road side waiting FAO No. 721 of 2007 2 for conveyance. In the meantime, motor cycle bearing No.HR-36-D- 7752, came from Rewari side, driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and struck against him. As a result of this the appellant suffered injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed. Notice of the claim petition was issued to the respondents and they filed their written statements. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether petitioner Rajesh Kumar son of Suraj Bhan sustained injuries in a road accident which took place on 22.7.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of Motor- cycle bearing registeration No.HR 36-D-7752 being driven by respondent No.1, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petitioner is not maintainable ? OPR. 4. Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition ? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder and non- joinder of necessary parties ? OPR 6. Whether respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident, if so to what effect ? OPR FAO No. 721 of 2007 3 7. Relief. Parties led their evidence in support of their case. Vide the impugned award, the claim petition was dismissed by the learned Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accident in this case had allegedly taken place on 22.7.2002. FIR No.75 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Sadar Rewari was registered on 13.9.2003. There is a considerable delay in lodging of the FIR with regard to the accident. The appellant took up the plea that he could not lodge the FIR immediately after the accident as he was under treatment. The appellant was discharged from the hospital on 24.7.2002 and, thereafter, he was admitted in Ram Bhagwan Cheritable Cancer Management and Research at village Neerpur, District Rewari from 20.10.2002 to 2.11.2002. However, FIR in this case was lodged on 13.9.2003. As per the appellant his brother Dharampal was accompanying him at the time of accident. There is no explanation as to why Dharampal did not immediately lodge the FIR. There is no cogent explanation for this delay. Although in order to substantiate a claim under the Motor Vehicle Act, it is not always necessary to lodge the FIR but the delay in lodging the FIR in this FAO No. 721 of 2007 4 case makes the statement of the appellant with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in question, untrustworthy. A benevolent provision has been provided under the Act to provide speedy compensation to the victims of the road side accidents. However, the claimant is required to plead and prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Respondents No.1 and 2 in their written statement have averred that appellant himself was negligent and accident had occurred due to his negligence. They, however, did not appear in the witness box. It appears that the claim petition has been filed by appellant in collusion with respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are his co- villagers. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has rightly dis- believed the testimony of the appellant with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle in the alleged accident. The pendency of the criminal case is also not material as the finding of the Criminal Court is not binding on this case. Accordingly, this appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs. (SABINA) JUDGE December 22, 2008 anita