HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhe Shvam Sharma Appejlant Resoondents IVIIscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 772/2008 Dau Ram Verma S/o. Shobha Ram Verma Aged about 62 years, R/o. Village Barda, potice Station Kasdol, District Raipur versus 1. Sheikh Azaz S/o. Sheikh Israil Musaiman, Aged about 21 years, R/o. Idgah Bhatha, Raipur Djstrict Raipur (CG) Chandrabhan Mishra S/o. Late Ramanuj Mishra R/o. Piptara, Police Station Marka, Tahsil & District Kawardha (CG) The National Insurance Company Ltd., Through: Manager, Gil Compfex, Near Gurudwara Station Road, Durg District Durg (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicies Act. 1988 Present: Shri C.K. Sahu, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri C.R. Sahu, counse! forthe appe!!ant. Ms. Morisha Chattri, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Y.C. Sharma, counsel for respondents 1 & 2. Shri Rakesh Sahu, counse! for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (15th September, 2011.) Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition by award dated 05.02.2008 passed by 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur in Claim Case No.01/07, the claimant/appellant ""%v u '^ :'':^&."€^ !y herein preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act'). 2. The appellant had preferred the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident which took piace on 18.02.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. Appellant Dau Ram Verma was riding Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No.CG 04/0751 from Ralpur to village Barda. When he reached near Dr. Chandsi House, Palari Road, a marshal jeep bearing registration No.CG 05/6812 coming from ppposite direction, driven in rash and negligent manner by the driver, dashed the Hero Honda motor cycle. The appellant fell down and sustained injuries in his right hand and wrist was fractured. The appellant was admitted in Primary Health Centre, Palari for treatment and he had spent Rs. 1 !akh for his treatment. The appeltant was aged about 62 years and was working as accountant, on the date of the accident. His monthly earning was Rs.4,000/-. The appeliant claimed a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation from the respondents. Respondents 1 ,2 & 3 are the driver, owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle respectjvely. They filed their reply to the claim petition. Respondents 1 & 2 denied their involvement and respondent No.3 denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective drivirig licence and the accictent occurred due to negligence of the appeliant himself. 3. The tearned Claims Tribunal, while considering the pleadings, evidence and other material available on record, held that the accident was not caused by the, offending vehicle and the accident was occurred due to negligence of the appellant himself and dismissed the claim of the appellant. ^ <lrv 4. Shri C.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal did not properly appreciate the evidence led by the appeilant/ciaimant. The learned Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petjtion on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR. The appeilant has proved his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence. He relied on Ravi Vs. Badrinaravan and Others 2011 (I) A.C.T. 11. 5. Ms. Morisha Chattri, learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2 and Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have supported the impugned award. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence available on record and submissions made by the parties, dismissed the claim of the claimant/appeliant. 7. in Ravj Vs. Badrinarayan (supra), it has been held that the purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the clajm petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay jn todging the same should not be treated as fatai for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayedJodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranqujlity of mind and are composed to lodge it, T even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstance, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. 8. In the instant case, the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition not solely on the ground of delay in lodging the FIR, but it was dismissed on the ground that the appellant falled to prove that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver/respondent No.1. The appeltant failed to prove that which marshal jeep was involved in the accident. Hence the case is distinguishable. 9. Dau Ram Verma (AW-1) deposed that on the fateful day, after discharging his duties in the rice mill, he was going to his village Barda on his motor cycie bearing registration No.CG 04/0751. When he was riding the motor cycle, a white marshal jeep coming from Baloda Bazar to Raipur, came there on his front. The said jeep fled after dashing his motor cycle. Arvind Tiwari (AW-2) deposed that a white marshal dashed the motor cycle of the appellant. Dau Ram was taken to Palari hospital. The marshal, after staying at some distance, had gone away. From perusal of the evidence adduced by the appellant, it is not established that which vehicle (marshal) was involved in the accident. 10. Frpm the above discussion, it is established that the appellant has failed to prove that which marshal jeep was involved in the accident. Merely stating by him that a white marshal jeep was involved in the accident cannot be considered that the marshal jeep involved in the accident, whose description given in the instant case, was same as stated by him. The ^" accident took place on 18.2.2006 and First Information Report ofthe accident was lodged on 29.4.2006, i.e. after 2 months and 1 1 days of the incident. In this view of the matter also, the claim of the claimant /appellant is unacceptable. The judgment relied by the appellant is distinguishable on facts. 11. In the result, the award under appeal, being unexceptionable, is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.S. Sharma Judge Blnj