JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 2nd August, 1999 passed by the learned Tribunal, Dausa in claim petition No. 322/96. 2. Brief facts of the case are that in the night of 20th April, 1996 at about 3.00 a.m., Sariya alongwith some other persons were coming from village Paparda to his village Happawas after attending a marriage ceremony and when they reached near Bhatto Ki Dhani, a motor cycle No. RJ 29 M 1243 driven rashly and negligently with an excessive speed hit Sariya who sustained grevious injuries and later on in the hospital where he died. An F.I.R. to this effect was lodged on 5th June, 1996 after a gap of approximately one and half month for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. 3. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. Reply was filed. Issues were framed and evidences were submitted by the parties. After hearing the parties and scrutinising the evidence, the learned Tribunal had rejected the aforesaid award. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the aforesaid award dated 2nd August, 1999, this civil misc. appeal is preferred. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Sandeep Mathur has contended that although F.I.R. was lodged on 5th June, 1996 but at the time of proceeding of Section 174 Criminal Procedure Code they have given information to the Poilce Chokey Moti Doongari. 5. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence of A.W.1 Ram Kishore, A.W.2 Geela Ram and A.W.3 Ram Prasad. 6. Mr. Mathur has placed reliance on the judgments on the cases of "Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others" reported in MACD 2011 (SC) 46 ; "UIICL v. Suresh Chandra Sharma" AIR 2010 472 (Raj.) ; "Mst. Rajanti and others v. Nihal Singh and others" 2001 (I) TAC 708 (Raj.). 7. He has further contended that the statements of these witnesses were also corroborated by the documentary evidence like F.I.R, charge sheet, site plan, MIR of motor cycle and by the oral and documentary evidence it is proved that Sariya was hit by the aforesaid motor cycle on 29th April, 1996 but the learned Tribunal without giving any reason disbelieved their statements and has relied upon total false statements of NAW-1 Gordhan, NAW-2 Ganesh and NAW-3 Pooni Ram. Hence, the award be set aside. 8. Learned Counsel Mr. Chetan Kumar Jain for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Mrs. Chitra Goyal for respondent No.3 have contended that F.I.R in the present matter has been lodged after expiry of one and half month and in the said F.I.R only the number of motor cycle has been mentioned but name of the driver who was driving the motor cycle was not mentioned. 9. They have further drawn attention of this Court that there are contradictions in between the statements of the witnesses regarding accident, number of motor cycle and the name of driver and Ram Kishore who had lodged first information report after expiry of one and half month has not mentioned the name of driver of the motor cycle. On the basis of hearsay evidence he has mentioned the name in Court while he was not an eye witness. 10. They have further contended that Ram Kishore has appeared before the criminal court but there is lot of contradiction in the statements given by Ram Kishore before the Criminal Court and before the learned Tribunal and which has been discussed by the learned Tribunal in issue No.1. 11. They have further contended that there is contradiction in the statements of A.W.1 A.W.2 and A.W.3. Mool Chand was also acquitted by the Criminal Court. 12. They have further contended that name of Mool Chand was not mentioned in the first information report which has been lodged by Ram Kishore A.W.1 after expiry of one and half month. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the entire facts and record of the case including the award. 14. It appears that the learned Tribunal has discussed each and every aspect of the case in the issues and there is, no satisfactory explanation given by Ram Kishore that as to why he -has lodged the F.I.R. which such a delay of more than one and half month. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellants viz; A.W-1 Ram Kishore, A.W-2 Geela Ram and A.W-3 Rain Prasad and as such the learned Tribunal has rightly believed the statements of NAWI Gordhan, NAW 2 Ganesh and NAW 3 Pooni Ram. 15. There are contradictions in the statements of the witnesses produced by the appellants viz; A.W-1 Ram Kishore, A.W-2 Geela Ram and A.W-3 Rain Prasad and as such the learned Tribunal has rightly believed the statements of NAWI Gordhan, NAW 2 Ganesh and NAW 3 Pooni Ram. 15. For these reasons, mentioned hereinabove, I do not think it proper to accept this appeal as the award does not call for any interference by this Court. 16. Consequently, the Civil misc appeal is dismissed. The award dated 2nd August, 1999 is hereby confirmed. *******