JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal has been filed by appellant-claimant Prakash Kumar @ Pukhraj being aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.08.2010 passed by learned judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No. 48/2009, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected the claim petition as well as an application regarding "No Fault Liability" filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi by the appellant-claimant stating that on 06.11.2008 when the appellant was going to Pindwara on motorcycle bearing No. RJ-24-SB-0142, then opposite to the office of Panchayat Samiti, a JCB bearing No. RJ-24-EA-0087 belonging to the respondent No. 2 and driven by the respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently dashed against the motorcycle of the appellant, as a result of which the appellant-claimant sustained injuries and he became unconscious. He was taken to the Government Hospital, Pindwara. An injury report bearing No. 289 dated 06.11.2008 was prepared by the doctors. On 07.11.2008, the appellant was got admitted at Mehsana Hospital, where he remained hospitalized for 12 days. The treatment of the appellant continued for long at Mehsana, Ahmedabad, Gujrat Hospital, Sirohi, G.B. American Hospital, Udaipur, Bombay Hospital, Mumbai etc. The appellant was examined by the Medical Board and it has been stated in the report that the appellant sustained hemorrhage and on the left upper and lower limb muscle power of all groups of muscles were found to be 3-4 grade. It is further stated that when the appellant got some relief, he lodged an FIR of the incident on 05.12.2008 and on enquiry by the police authorities under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it was disclosed by the respondent No. 2 that on 06.11.2008 at the time of the accident, the JCB was being driven by the respondent No. 1 Dungar Ram. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, the appellant-claimant filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,90,000/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and admitted the factum of the accident. The respondent No. 3 also filed reply to the claim petition. On behalf of the appellant, he examined himself as A.W. 1 and produced as many as 124 documents in support of his claim. 3,90,000/-. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply and admitted the factum of the accident. The respondent No. 3 also filed reply to the claim petition. On behalf of the appellant, he examined himself as A.W. 1 and produced as many as 124 documents in support of his claim. However, no evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.The learned Tribunal did not pass any order on the application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellant-claimant and after hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal vide the impugned judgment dated 20.08.2010 dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also rejected the application filed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment dated 20.08.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-claimant has preferred this civil misc. appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition of the present appellant. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal failed to look into the facts and record of the case and has also not considered the evidence led on behalf of the parties in the true perspective.The learned counsel further contended that respondent Nos. 1 & 2, the driver and the owner of the vehicle admitted the fact that accident took place on 06.11.2008 by their JCB although they denied the negligence on the part of the driver. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, thus, the factum of the accident is well established and proved beyond doubt. The appellant also stated on oath that the accident occurred and he could not file FIR immediately because soon after the accident he became unconscious and remained under treatment for a long period at various hospitals. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that injury of the appellant was prepared on the same date of accident by the Medical Officer at Government Hospital, Pindwara on 06.11.2008. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant on flimsy ground that the injured could not see the number of JCB while driving the motor cycle. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim of the appellant on flimsy ground that the injured could not see the number of JCB while driving the motor cycle. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the fact that the Medical Officer who observed the injuries on the bodies of the appellant-injured; did not inform the police authorities, cannot be a ground for the rejection of the claim petition. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that delay in reporting the matter to the police or lodging the First Information Report cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim, if the claimant has led the evidence to prove sufficient cause for the delay. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in (1) Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors., 2011 R.A.R. 81 (SC) ; (2) Kusurn Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors., 2011 R.A.R. 115 (SC) ; (3) Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand & Ors.; 2011 R.A.R. 198 (SC) and the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parnieshwar & 13 Ors., 2009 R.A.R. 179 (Raj. ) and National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Surjan Singh & Ors. 2009 R.A.R. 313 (Raj.) . 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that this is a clear case of concoction of the story and after lapse of one month, the appellant as well as the respondent Nos.l & 2 managed to substitute the vehicle and put-forth a false story regarding the accident by the JCB bearing No. RJ-24-EA-0087. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 contended that in the appropriate cases, if the injured satisfies the delay in filing the First Information Report by a plausible explanation or reason, the claim cannot be rejected but at the same time, when the story put-forth by the appellant does not inspire any faith or confidence, the claim can be rejected. The learned counsel further contended that it is very unnatural and against the normal human conduct that when the appellant-injured stated in his cross-examination that he was conscious at the time when he reached the Government Hospital, Pindwara and informed the Medical Officer regarding the accident; he saw the number of JCB but did not inform the police authorities in due time and even after discharging from the Higher Centre, when he came to his residence, he did not inform his brother and other relatives about the number of offending vehicle or about the way in which the accident took place; and after the period of one months, appellant filed First Information Report in Police Station. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 further drew my attention towards this fact that respondent Nos. 1 & 2 remained absent for sufficient time and later on, filed the written statement and after filing the written statement again remained absent from the proceedings. This shows that how they were connived in getting the damages. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 further contended that there is no evidence to prove that alleged accident took place from a particular vehicle driving by a particular driver and claimant tries to fabricate the case of motor vehicle accident, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 further contended that it is not mandatory for the Court or tribunal to blindly accept unrebutted oral statement of any of the witnesses wrong in facts and circumstance of the case and evidence available on record. He further contended that in the present case, it can very well be considered that the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 connived with the appellant to get damages from the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the following judgment in support of his arguments: (1) Madan Lal v. Babu Lal & Am., 2007 R.A.R. 308 ( Raj.) (2) Rajender v. Om Prakash & Ors.; 2007 R.A.R. 302 (Raj.) and (3) Mala Ram v. Roopa Ram & Ors., 2004 R.A.R. 543 (Raj.) 11. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and also perused the judgments cited by them and also perused the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal and also the statements of the appellant-injured recorded by the Tribunal. 12. I have considered the rival contentions of both the parties and also perused the judgments cited by them and also perused the impugned judgment passed by learned Tribunal and also the statements of the appellant-injured recorded by the Tribunal. 12. In Ravi v. Badrinarayan & Ors. (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that where the owner of the vehicle admitted in reply to notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act, the factum of accident, driver and information of accident on same day; and delay in filing the FIR explained satisfactory, then, delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. 13. In Kusum Lata & Ors. v. Satbir & Ors . (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the FIR was lodged by brother of the deceased, who rashed for treatment of deceased. Under mental strain brother of deceased forgot to take down the number of vehicle, which is not unnatural. 14. In Parmeshwari v. Amir Chand & Ors. (supra), the accident took place in Hanumangarh and the matter was reported to Senior Superintendent of Police, Hisar and same was sent to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Hanumangarh. The Hob'ble Apex Court held that non-production of these witnesses is not fatal. 15. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parmeshwar & 13 Ors. (supra) it has been held that where the challan and other relevant papers shows involvement of vehicle and is also supported by the evidence and error committed by the owner while filing FIR; this is finding of fact and awarding of claim by the Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. 16. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Surjan Singh & Ors . (supra), where the mother of the victim was the eyewitness and she stated that tractor hited to deceased when she was going with the deceased; there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of mother of the deceased. 17. In Mala Ram v. Roopa Ram & Ors . (supra), the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, it has been held that it is not mandatory for the Court or the Tribunal to blindly accept unrebutted oral statement of any of parties found wrong in facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In Madan Lal v. Babu Lal & Anr. (supra), the judgment cited by learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, it has been held that it is not mandatory for the Court or the Tribunal to blindly accept unrebutted oral statement of any of parties found wrong in facts and circumstances of the case. 18. In Madan Lal v. Babu Lal & Anr. (supra), it has been held that if there is no evidence to prove that alleged accident occurred from particular vehicle, the claim cannot be accepted. 19. In Rajender v. Om Prakash & Ors . (supra), it has been held that where there is no material evidence of nature of injury and duration of stay in hospital, the dismissal of the claim by the tribunal was held to be proper. 20. At the outset, it may be noticed that in spite of the production of three documents in support of the claim, the Tribunal after considering the arguments dismissed the claim petition of the appellant-claimant though the appellant gave his statement in support of his claim and there is no evidence in rebuttal to rebut the statement of claimant-appellant given on oath but the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition holding it to be based on wrong facts and circumstances and in the light of the evidence available on record. In the present case, the appellant alleged that he was driving the motor cycle and he met with accident but could not lodge the First Information Report because he was taken to Higher Medical Centre after initial treatment at Pindwara Government Hospital. The said explanation and delay in filing the first information report was found to be absolutely false by the learned Tribunal. The appellant deposed before the Tribunal that while driving the motor cycle, he saw the number of JCB but he did not inform the number of JCB to the doctor or to his brother, who attended him while he was admitted in Higher Medical Centre. Even after discharging from the Higher Centre, when he came to his residence, he did not inform number of JCB to his brother and any other family member. The total period for which the appellant remained in hospital is about 12 days. 21. Even after discharging from the Higher Centre, when he came to his residence, he did not inform number of JCB to his brother and any other family member. The total period for which the appellant remained in hospital is about 12 days. 21. So far as the appellant's stand that he remained in the Higher Medical Centre and thereafter at his residence, the learned trial Court recorded its finding that evidence of the appellant-injured does not inspire any faith and confidence in view of inherent contradictions in his statements. The Tribunal observed that on the one hand, he deposed that he saw the number of vehicle and on the other hand, he stated that he did not inform the number of JCB to his brother and other family members; this is most unnatural behavior of the appellant and is against the normal human behavior. 22. I have also pondered over the evidence and explanation given by the appellant-injured. In the background of the aforesaid facts, the explanation given by the appellant for not lodging FIR for one month appears to be absolutely false explanation. The appellant even failed to examine the two eye-witnesses, namely, Satish and Naina Ram before the Tribunal. The driver and the owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal to contest the claim of the appellant. The appellant even has not produced any evidence, on the basis of whose statement, the police reached to the conclusion that accident was committed by respondent No. 1 Shri Dungar Singh against whom the challan was filed. The Tribunal was, therefore, very much right in observing that the statement of the appellant-injured does not inspire any faith and there are inherent contradictions in- his statements. The judgment cited by learned counsel for the appellant are having different facts to the present on because it is a settled principle of law that when the plausible explanation has been given by the lodger of the FIR for delay, the claim can be allowed on the statement of such witness but in the present case, in the facts and circumstances, the explanation submitted by the appellant-injured does not inspire any faith and confidence. 23. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant. 24. 23. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant. 24. Consequently, the appeal filed against the order of the Tribunal being bereft of any merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******