1"^ 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 6. In the matter of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan & others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has hetd that delay in lodging FER cannot be a ground to doubt claimant's case in genuine cases. It is not expected that a person would to rush to police station after accident. Treatment of yictim is given priority over lodging FIR- 7. Even otherwise perusal of the record shows that the claimant was admitted in the hospital and there is a remark on the admission slip of the claimant that it was a case of ftTA i.e. Road Transport Accident. However, the Claims Tribunal lost sight of the said fact and therefore did not take notice of the same. Therefore, we feel that matter requires reconsideration at the end of the Claims Tribunal. 8. Accordingly/ the cxppeal is partly allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Claims TribunGt for decision afresh in light of the observations made in this order. Needless to mention that the Claims Tribunal shall provide opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if any, or to call/recall the witnesses, amend the pleadings or to file or verify the documents already filed. The Claims Tribunal shall also issue summons to the owner of vehicle as none appeared on behalf of her before this Court despite service. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunai concerned on 20.10.2011< The Registry is directed to transmit record of the Claims Tribund_concem©dwithout further delay< No order asJ^co^tS-———-— Sd/- G.Mmhajuddin LM.Quddusi Judge Judge roshan/-