Judgment ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the award dated 19-9-2003 passed by XIII MACT, Indore in claim Case No. 90/03 where by the claim petition filed by the appellant for award of compensation of Rs. 4 lacs on account of injury sustained by him in a Motor Accident the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) SHORT facts alleged in the claim petition are that on 4-7-2001 appellant was going on his motor bike on the left side of the road, at that time a jeep bearing vehicle No. MP-09-S-1310 was coming from other side. It was alleged that respondent No. 2 was driving the offending vehicle rashly and negligently and hit the appellant with the result appellant sustained fractureof Tibia and Fibula bones in his left leg and also fracture of 3rd Metatarsal bone. It was alleged that the appellant was brought to Gokuldas Hospital, where he remained as Indoorpatient. Thereafterappellant was shifted to Minesh Hospital, where he remained up to 1 -8-2001. It was further alleged that at the relevant time Respondent No. 3 was the insurer of the offending jeep. With the aforesaid allegations, the claim petition was filed. ( 3. ) THE claim petition was contested by respondent No. 3 on various grounds including on the ground that no accident has occurred with the offending vehicle. It was also denied that appellant sustained injury in a motor accident. The liability of Insurance Company was also disputed. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and reading of the evidence learned Tribunal dismissed claim petition against which the present appeal has been filed. ( 4. ) MR. Hemant Vaishnav, learned Counsel forthe appellant submits that learned Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of delay in lodging the F. I. R. Learned Counsel submits that afterthe accident appellant was unconscious, therefore, it was not expected from the appellant to lodge the f. I. R. after sustaining grievous injuries before taking the treatment. It is also submitted that it is not the statutory duty of the appellant to lodge the complaint about the accident. It is also submitted that it is not the statutory duty of the appellant to lodge the complaint about the accident. Learned Counsel further submits that in the discharge certificate issued by Gokuldas hospital, it is mentioned that road traffic accident was occurred between the a motor bike and jeep which shows that the factum of accident was brought to the notice to the hospital authorities at the relevant time immediately after the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of dhanvanti and others v. Kulvant Singh wherein a division bench of this Court has held that evidence recorded in criminal Court and findings arrived therein are not applicable in claim case. Further reliance was placed on a decision in the matter of Dharamveer Singh punjabi v. Raghuwar where in it was held by this Court that the findings of the criminal court resulting the acquittal of the driver is not binding upon the claims tribunal. Reliance was also place on a decision of Karnataka high Court in the matter of P. Varlakshmi reddy v. Karnataka State Road Transport corp. , wherein a Divisional Bench of karnataka High Court held that proceedings before the Tribunal are independent and tribunal is not bound by decision of criminal case wherein driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted. Another decision submitted by the learned Counsel is Lakshmi Gontia v. Nandlal, wherein Divisional Bench of this court has held that evidence recorded in criminal case and findings recorded therein are inadmissible in a claim case. ( 5. ) COUNSEL forthe appellant further placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the matter of Daulatram v. Akash Kumar5 , wherein a Divisional Bench of this Court has held that in a claim case, accident proved by eye witness and police also registered criminal case against driver, claim petition can not be dismissed. Reliance was also placed on a decision of Prem Narayan v. Radheshyam6, wherein the claimant was hospitalized immediately after the accident and reported the accident but the police authorities initiated the criminal proceedings after 2 years and on that basis claim case was dismissed, -this court held that the approach of learned Tribunal was technical as there was nofault on the part of appellant who reported about the accident to the hospital authorities. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of this Couit in the matter of Manojv. Samundar Singh7, wherein the matter was reported to the police after one year and the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition 6n account of delay in lodging the claim petition, a Divisional Bench of this Court held that eye-witness proved the accident, therefore, claim petition cannot be dismissed. Further reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in the matter of Mannulalv. Surendra pal Singh8, wherein claim petition was dismissed holding that involvement of offending truck is not proved, findings of the learned Tribunal were set aside by the divisional Bench of this Court on the ground that the truck who ran away was seen by the by-standers and the vehicle was identified by the claimant witnesses, therefore, claim petition cannot be dismissed. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Punjab and haryana High Court in the matter Harbans Lal v. Nazar Singh9, wherein F. I. R. was lodged, after a week, it was held that in case of fatal accident, it cannot expected that injured or survivors of deceased would immediately rush to the Police Station for lodging the complaint. Reliance was further placed on the decision of this Court in the matter of Gulab Bai v. Vipin and others10 where the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that witnesses can not memorizes the number of truck after lapse of 11 months, a Divisional bench of this Court held that the learned tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence and not viewed the things from correct angel and further held that the accident is established on the preponderance of the probabilities. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition. ( 6. ) MR. S. V. Dandate, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that after due appreciation of evidence adduced by the claimant/appellant learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition which requires no interference. ( 7. ) FROM perusal of the recode it appears that the accident occurred on 4-7-2001. Appellant was hospitalized in Gokuldas hospital on that very day. S. V. Dandate, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that after due appreciation of evidence adduced by the claimant/appellant learned Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition which requires no interference. ( 7. ) FROM perusal of the recode it appears that the accident occurred on 4-7-2001. Appellant was hospitalized in Gokuldas hospital on that very day. Discharge slip was issued on 11-7-2001 which is Exhibit P-9 which was prepared on 11 -7-2001, when the appellant was discharged from the hospital and in the case history it is mention that the case of the appellant is of the road traffic accident by Motor bike with the Jeep. It is also not in dispute that police got the information on 11-7-2001 telephonically from Gokuldas hospital. In fact it is the statutory duty of the authorities of the hospital to intimate about the incident to the nearest police station immediately after the receipt of accidental case. The doctors can also not delay the treatment on the ground of giving intimation to the police authorities in giving the information to the police station is not on record. Even if the Insurance Company was having any doubt about the involvement of the offending vehicle, in the accident the Instance Company could have also called the hospital authorities along with record to prove that, it was not a accidental case. It is true that there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Undoubtedly no efforts were made by the Insurance Company in getting the matter investigated. Only on the basis that the F. I. R. was lodged on 11 -7-2001, while the accident took place on 4-7-2001, it cannot be said that the offending vehicle has falsely been implicated. So far as proving the involvement and the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 is concerned, the claimant examined himself and also an independent witness whose field was in the nearby place where the accident occurred. ( 8. ) IN view of the law and down by this Court in various cases mentioned hereinabove, it is settled law that the Tribunal while deciding claim cases are not required to be influenced by the findings of criminal case and is required to decide a claim case on the basis of preponderance of the probabilities. In the present case there is noting on record to shown that what was the result of criminal case. In the present case there is noting on record to shown that what was the result of criminal case. The importantthing which has come on recode in evidence of the claimant is that the appellant was brought to Gokuldas Hospital by offending jeep itself. This statement of was corroborated by the A. W. 2 Bheekaji who has stated that the appellant who was injured was brought by him to the hospital. In the facts and circumstances of the case learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the claimant failed to proved the involvement of the offending vehicle. In the circumstances it is held that the accident occurred by the offending vehicle which was owned by R-1 driven by r-2 rashly and negligently and insured with respondent No. 3 at the relevant time. ( 9. ) SINCE the Court has come to the concl sion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of R-2 by the offending vehicle, therefore, now the question which arises is whetherthe appellant is entitle for any compensation? If yes, to what extent? from perusal of record it is evident that the appellant was hospitalized at Gokuldas hospital from 4-7-2001 to11-7-2001 and from 11 -7-2001 to 1 -8-2001 at Minesh Hospital. At gokuldas Hospital the bill amount is of rs. 4,716 and Rs. 706 for which duly paid receipts are Exhibit P-13 and 14. So far as the bill of Minesh Hospital is concerned the bill is of Rs. 47,000 which is on a letter pad and exorbitant amount of expenditure has been shown for which there are no details, which is unbelievable. The cash memos Exhibits P-15 to P-18 is of Rs. 6,868. 80. Out of this Exhibit p-15 is for Rs. 2,400 dated 23-7-2001 and exhibit P-18 is dated 1-8-2001 while the accident is dated 4-7-2001. Why this costly medicines were required when the appellant was discharged on 1-8-2001 is nowhere explained. The reason for shifting from gokuldas Hospital to Mineshhospital is also shown that since Gokuldas Hospital was expensive, therefore, appellant shifted to minesh Hospital. The bill of Minesh Hospital which is on letter pad and is of Rs. 47,000 is on much higher side against the bill of gokuldas Hospital which is of only Rs. 5,422 is unbelievable because the very purpose of shifting from Gokuldas Hospital was that it was expensive. The bill of Minesh Hospital which is on letter pad and is of Rs. 47,000 is on much higher side against the bill of gokuldas Hospital which is of only Rs. 5,422 is unbelievable because the very purpose of shifting from Gokuldas Hospital was that it was expensive. A person, who leaves a hospital on account of being its expensive, will not spent 10 time more in getting himself treated in some other Hospital. No record of the hospital has been called to prove that infect the appellant has payed a sum of Rs. 47,000 as mentioned on the letter pad of Minesh hospital which is Exhibit P-12. ( 10. ) FROM perusal of the evidence on record and also the statement of Dr. Pradeep chaudhary A. W. 3 who is not the treating doctor, it can safely be-said that appellant sustained grievous injuries for which the appellant was hospitalized. So far as permanent disability to the extent of 25% is concerned the statement of Dr. Pradeep chaudhary cannot be relied upon for a simple reason that certificate Exhibit P-28 which was prepared on 27-3-2003 after2 years of accident and Dr. Pradeep Chaudhary did not botherto take the latest x-ray report of the patient. It is surprising whether a doctor can issue a certificate of permanent disability after 2 years of the accident without having a fresh x-ray report of the patient. While determining the compensation the Courts are guided by the certificates issued by the doctors. If a doctor issues the certificate of permanent disability in such a manner then no reliance can be places on such certificates for assessing the permanent disability. ( 11. ) HOWEVER, smce the appellant has sustained the fracture and appellant was also hospitalized, where the nailing took place after the operation, the appellant is entitled for the following amount of compensation. ( 12. ) IN view of this the appeal is allowed. Impugned award passed by the learned tribunal is set aside. Appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs. 55,000 which shall carry interest @ 7. 5% from the date of application and shall be payable by the respondents jointly and severally. No order as to costs.