1. This miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging award dated 31.07.2012 passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Claim Case No.896/2011 and praying for following relief:-

          It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and appellant/Insurance Company be exonerated thereby dismissing the claim petition. In the alternative, awarded amount be reduced. Also apportion amount be reduced for contributory negligence. Any other relief deemed fit be also granted in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience.

2. The prosecution story in short is that on 13.01.2011 at about 10:30 P.M., the deceased was going from Nehru Market Barkheda to his home Barkheda Pathani on his motorcycle and as soon as he reached the Tiraha before the turn of the girl school, the driver of an Indica Car No.MP-04-CC-6198 coming from Barkheda Pathani side was driving the car very fast, negligently and carelessly and hit the deceased's car with great force. Due to strong collision, the deceased suffered serious head injuries. The deceased was taken to Kasturba Hospital BHEL, Bhopal in a seriously injured condition where he died during treatment on 22.01.2011. The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted at Hamidia Hospital Bhopal.

3. Learned counsel for appellant/insurance company submitted that the offending vehicle has been implanted in the accident when the criminal papers as well the deposition clearly establishes the fact that the deceased Jasmat Umre died because of the motorcycle getting slipped while the same was being ridden, but just to extort undue compensation from the appellant/insurance company, the insured vehicle has been implanted. It is further submitted that the impugned award is contrary to the evidence on record and settled principles of law. Exhibit P-4, forming part of the challan and being a public document, clearly records that the accident occurred due to slipping of the motorcycle. The Learned Tribunal erred in disbelieving this material document without cogent reasons. Further, the PMLC Report (Ex. P-6) indicates that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, which was not properly considered while determining negligence. The accident occurred on 13.01.2011, whereas the FIR was lodged only on 16.03.2011, after an unexplained delay of over two months. No statement of the injured was recorded despite hospital intimation. The charge sheet, seizure, and related proceedings were conducted in haste on 17.03.2011. The unexplained delay, procedural irregularities, and material discrepancies in witness depositions create serious doubt regarding the alleged involvement of the insured vehicle. The Learned Tribunal further erred in discarding the testimony of defence witnesses and in assessing the income of the deceased at Rs,20,544/- per month without reliable proof, contrary to the principles laid down in Syed Basheer Ahamed & Anr. v. Mohd. Jameel & Anr., (2009) ACC 29 SC) . The award of compensation is excessive and contrary to the law laid down in State of Haryana v. Jasbir Kaur & Ors ., which mandates that compensation must be just and reasonable and not a source of profit. In these circumstnaces, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. Alternatively, the compensation awarded is liable to be substantially reduced, including appropriate deduction on account of contributory negligence.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants submitted that the impugned award is based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and does not warrant interference. The involvement of the insured vehicle stands proved by the FIR, charge sheet, seizure memo, and consistent eye-witness testimony. Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not fatal when the investigation culminated in filing of the charge sheet against the driver. The compensation awarded is just, fair, and in accordance with settled principles of law. No perversity or illegality has been shown in the impugned award. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the award affirmed.

5. Heard the counsel for the parties.

6. The plea that the accident occurred due to slipping of the motorcycle has been considered and rightly rejected. Allegations of false implication and collusion are unsupported by cogent evidence. The compensation awarded is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference.

7. Mainly, on behalf of the appellant, it was argued that the accident occurred on 13/1/2011, while the deceased died on 22/1/2011, yet even after receiving information, the statement of the injured was not recorded. Additionally, the First Information Report was lodged on 16/3/2011. This indicates that the appellant in collusion with the police, the vehicle driver, and the owner, lodged the First Information Report almost two months after the incident and submitted the charge sheet against Radheshyam. The above argument is not acceptable because merely on the ground that the First Information Report was lodged with a delay of two months, the compensation application cannot be dismissed. Instead, it must be determined by considering the entire facts and evidence whether the application has been submitted on correct facts or not.

8. As far as this case is concerned, it is evident that witness Anil Sarvaiya (PW 2), who was present at the scene of the incident, witnessed the incident and no fact has emerged in his testimony on the basis of which his evidence can be discarded. In addition, it is noteworthy that after the crime was registered, the investigation of the case was conducted. Upon investigation, it was prima facie established that the driver of the vehicle Indica car No. MP04/CC-6198, Radheshyam caused the accident. It is also necessary to mention here that the First Information Report was lodged after the inquiry into the merg (inquest). In such a situation, the reason for the delay in lodging the FIR is clear.

9. With regard to delay in lodging of FIR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 17, 18, and 19 of the judgment passed in Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 SCC 693, has held as under:-

          "17. It is well settled that delay in lodging of FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the police station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the police station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.

          18. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If the court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons, then even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences.

          19. Lodging of FIR certainly proves the 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 claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be a variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgement of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even it, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons."

10. No evidence has been presented on behalf of the appellant from which it appears that the driver and owner of vehicle MP04/CC6198 have been involved in other similar cases. Therefore, the fact of colluding with the vehicle owner and driver to fabricate a false case stands refuted on its own.

11. In view of aforesaid submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds no merit in the appeal. The Learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle. The involvement of the vehicle is duly established by the FIR, charge sheet, and eye- witness testimony. Mere delay in lodging the FIR is not sufficient to discard otherwise reliable evidence. No perversity or illegality has been shown in the impugned award.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the award is affirmed. No order as to costs.

13. Record of the Claims Tribunal be sent back.