JUDGMENT 1. - This is a Misc. appeal filed by appellant (claimant) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 against judgment dated 20th July, 2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track, Kotputli, District Jaipur in Civil Misc. Case No. 215/2005 (702/2003). 2. By impugned award, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant (appellant herein) and declined to award compensation claimed by the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the claimant thereby justifying in not awarding compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the claimant in the vehicular accident? 4. It is the case of the claimant (appellant herein) that on 2nd September, 2003 at about 4-5 p.m. when he was going to field from his house, he was hit by a Motor Cycle hearing No. RJ32/M/5889 which was being driven rashly and negligently, causing him injuries on the body. The motor cycle was being driven by respondent No. 1. It was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured by respondent No. 3. 5. It is this event that gave him cause of action to file a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the non-applicants (respondents herein) claiming compensation for the injuries caused in the vehicular accident. It was contested by the non-applicants. Parties adduced evidence. 6. As stated supra, by impugned award, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition inter-alia on the ground that firstly claimant has failed to prove the accident that occurred with the offending vehicle bearing No.RJ 32-M-5889 and secondly, he failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle that led to accident. As a consequence, the Tribunal did not consider it proper to award any compensation for the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the claimant in the accident. 7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was two fold. Firstly, he contended that Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by holding that claimant failed to prove the accident in question. 7. Submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant was two fold. Firstly, he contended that Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition by holding that claimant failed to prove the accident in question. His second submission was that even assuming that the Tribunal was right in dismissing the claim petition yet it erred in giving direction to recover the interim compensation paid to the claimant by the insurer (N.A.3) under Section 140 of the Act amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. Learned Counsel placed reliance upon a decision rendered by Supreme Court in the case of Indra Devi v. Bagada Ram, 2011 R.A.R. 21 : 2010 (4) T.A.C. 24 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 2913 in support of this contention. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent supported the impugned award and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, I am inclined to partly allow this appeal and modify the impugned award by passing the following directions. 10. Coming to the first submission, I am inclined to uphold the finding recorded by the Tribunal, wherein it is held that the claimant has failed to prove the accident in question. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 2nd September, 2003, whereas the F.I.R. of the said incident was lodged after one week of the date of accident i.e. on 9th September, 2003. This fact, in my view, creates a suspicion in the mind of the Court that accident did not occur with the vehicle in question causing injuries to the claimant. In a case of injury, there was no reason for the claimant to have lodged the FIR immediately after the occurrence either by himself or with the aid of any person. In any event, the claimant was in a position to lodge an F.I.R. through anyone present at the time of occurrence or through anyone, who helped him taking to hospital etc., Non-submission of F.I.R. immediately after occurrence and waiting for a period of one week does not inspire confidence for holding that accident occurred with offending vehicle causing injuries to the claimant. Had it been a case of death then one could not expect a deceased to go and file an F.I.R. Such is not a case here. Had it been a case of death then one could not expect a deceased to go and file an F.I.R. Such is not a case here. That apart, no satisfactory explanation was given by the claimant to prove as to why there was delay in filing the F.I.R. so late. In the absence of any cogent explanation given by the claimant, the finding recorded by the Tribunal for dismissal of claim on the ground of tiling of delayed F.I.R. cannot be faulted with. It is accordingly upheld. 11. Be that as it may and apart from the aforesaid infirmity rightly taken note of by the Tribunal, there was no other evidence to support the case of the claimant for holding that accident occurred with the offending vehicle resulting in causing injuries to the claimant. No more discussion is needed on this aspect except what is observed supra for upholding the finding of the Tribunal. 12. Coming to the second contention, I find some force in it. In somewhat similar circumstances, their Lordship of Supreme Court in a case, reported in Indira Devi v. Bagada Ram, 2011 RAR 21: 2010 (4) TAC 24 (SC) : AIR 2010 SC 2913 , had directed that whatever compensation, which has already been paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the Act by way of interim compensation, it should not be recovered from the claimant notwithstanding the dismissal of the claim petition on merits. These observations were made by the Supreme Court on the principle of no fault liability because in such a case, the claimant was not required to prove any negligence on the part of driver of offending vehicle. In the facts of this case also, I find that such a direction can be issued not to recover the amount already paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the Act. That apart, the non-applicant being the Insurance Company, it should not rely upon the technicalities for realisation of this amount from the claimant. 13. Accordingly and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award in so far as it directs recovery of Rs. 25,000/- paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the Act is set aside. 13. Accordingly and in the light of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned award in so far as it directs recovery of Rs. 25,000/- paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the Act is set aside. In other words, it is directed that the respondents would not be able to recover any amount paid to the claimant (appellant herein) under Section 140 of the Act amount to Rs. 25,000/-.Appeal partly allowed. *******