1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ** S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.647/2006 (Shakil Ahmed Vs. Kesar Miya) Date of Judgment : 17-04-2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Ms.Rekha Arora, for the appellants. Mr.Dinesh Kala, 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-injured against the Judgment & award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk vide judgment dated 13.7.2005 whereby claim petition of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that the accident occurred on 26.8.01 while the report was made on 4.9.01 and it could not be proved that the vehicle in question was involved. 4. According to the facts of the case, the accident took place on 26.8.01 at about 2 10.00 PM in the night while injured was dashed when he was engaged in unloading Bajri by the side of the road and sustained fracture on his right knee in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of involvement of the offending vehicle in right perspective. It is further submitted that though the report was made after seven days of the accident but that is not fatal in MACT cases unlike a criminal case where there is evidence on record that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. It is further submitted that there is also documentary evidence on record pertaining to the notice under Sec.133 of the MV Act given to the owner of the vehicle where involvement of the vehicle in the accident is admitted. It is also submitted that after due investigation, case was challaned in the court and there has been no basis to suspect a fair investigation by the Tribunal and that the suspicion alone cannot be the basis of dismissal of claim petition. 3 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Tribunal on the point of issue no.1 wherein the learned Tribunal has held that the vehicle in question was not involved. However, it is also submitted that the finding of the Tribunal for assessing Rs.10,000/- as compensation on issue no.1 is also not sustainable. 7. After hearing the rival contentions, and on going through the award,as also, the record of the case, it is revealed that injured was dashed while he was engaged in unloading Bajri by the side of road. The report of course has been lodged after 09 days but the delay is not inordinate as the injured has sustained fracture in right knee and question of delay alone is not fatal in motor accident claim cases unlike criminal cases where guilt is to be proved beyond doubt. That apart there is direct evidence about the involvement of the vehicle by the injured which stands uncontroverted and, as such, I find no basis to sustain the finding of the Tribunal on issue no.1 and hence finding on issue no.1 is set aside and the 4 vehicle in question is found to be involved in the accident. As regards the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal has already awarded Rs.25,000/- under Sec.140 of the M.V.Act by way of interim award which is the bare minimum as no fault liability where disability is caused. Therefore, in this case, there is no need to further go into the quantum of compensation as the amount awarded takes care of the injuries sustained which resulted in 4.5% disability only. Thus the finding of learned Tribunal on the point is set aside and is modified accordingly. 8. Accordingly, the claim of the claimant- appellant for Rs.25,000/- is allowed and the respondents are ordered jointly and severally to make the payment with 6% interest to be paid from the date of appeal i.e. 14.10.05 within three months. Thereafter interest @9% p.a. shall be payable. The record of the case be sent back to the learned Tribunal. The appeal is allowed accordingly. (GUMAN SINGH),J. Srawat/- item no.44