JUDGMENT 1. 1. By filing instant misc. appeal the appellant claimant has filed the instant misc. appeal against the judgment/award dated 17-8-2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Kotputali, District Jaipur (for short the learned Tribunal ) in claim case No. 20/2006 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant claimant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim petition of the incident alleged to have taken place on 9-8-2001 when he was travelling on the scooter No. RJ-32-M-0629. As and when they reached near Suman Chat Center, suddenly, the driver of the said scooter, driving rashly and negligently, turned it down. As a result thereof the appellant sustained various injuries. The said accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the respondent No. 1 who was the driver and at the relevant time the respondents No. 2 and 3 were the owner and insurer of the offending scooter. After a delay of four days, FIR No. 591/2001 was lodged for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338, IPC. 3. Thereafter, reply was filed, issues were framed. The learned tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned award/judgment. Against the aforesaid judgment/award the appellant claimant has filed the instant misc. appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the claimant appellant submits that the learned Tribunal while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 has held that there was delay in lodging the FIR and on this ground it dismissed the claim petition. The accident occurred on 9-8-2001 at about 8-9 in the night, thereafter he was taken to Govt. BDM Hospital. Thereafter, he was advised by the doctor to take complete bed rest. But the learned Tribunal on the basis of surmises and conjectures has disbelieved the charge-sheet of the police. The notice under Section 133 of the M.V. Act was given to the owner of the vehicle. He submits that due to the accident the appellant sustained various grievous injuries and he has become 10% permanent disable for which he had to remain admit in hospital for many days and he had to incur a huge amount on the treatment. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has drawn attention of the Court to the statements of the witnesses. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has drawn attention of the Court to the statements of the witnesses. He submits that the claimant appellant lodged the FIR after a long lapse of four days for which no satisfactory explanation has been given by the claimant appellant. The claimant appellant was driving the scooter rashly and negligently. He submits the scooter belongs to the elder brother of the claimant appellant. Neither the claimant appellant received any injury on the vital part of the body nor he became unconscious. The whole claim of the claimant appellant is baseless and concocted. He submits that a heavy cost be imposed upon the claimant appellant for filing false misc. appeal. 6. From a bare persual of the facts of the case and material made available to me, in my considered view the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment after properly assessing the evidence submitted by both the parties and it need no interference of this Court. 7. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed after confirming the judgment/award dated 17-8-2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) Kotputali, District Jaipur in claim case No. 20/2006.Appeal dismissed. *******