ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 4.8.2009 in claim case No.434/2007 passed by 13th Addl. Member, MACT, Indore dismissing the claim of the appellant filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that scooter bearing registration No. MP-09-JB-6082 driven by the deceased met with an accident by a motorcycle bearing registration no. MP-09-LK-9813. It was also alleged that the said vehicle was insured by the Insurance Company yet the Tribunal has not awarded any compensation to the claimant. 2. According to the respondent/Insurance Corporation in this case, the appellant wanted to take benefit of the accident claim by fabricating the documents and on the basis of a collusion petition with the driver of the offending vehicle, who was acquitted of his guilt in the prosecution lodged against him by the police on the basis of an FIR registered after 99 days on the basis of a compromise reached between the driver and the claimant. As such, it was submitted that as there was no involvement of the offending vehicle and the case was fabricated and false case , the claim has rightly been turned down. 3. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company, who has taken the following preliminary objections:- ¼10½ fof’k”Vh Ø- 10 ¼nl½ ds laca/k esa %& izek.k ,oa nLrkost ds vHkko esa bl fof’k”Vh dk dFku vLohdkj gSA ;g vLohdkj gS fd izkFkhZ vius LdwVj ls tk jgk Fkk fd isM+ ls Vdjkus ds dkj.k uhps fxj iM+k] mlh le; ihNs ls rsth ,oa ykijokghiwoZd vk jgk okgu eksVjlkbZfdy Ø- ,e ih 09 ,y ds 9813 dk pkyd lnj okgu dks pykdj yk;k vkSj izkFkhZ dks tksjnkj Vddj ekj nh ftlls izkFkhZ xaHkhj :i ls ?kk;y gks x;kA izkFkhZ us vius dFkuksa ds leFkZu esa izekf.kr nLrkost izLrqr ugha fd;s gSaA izkFkhZ vius dFkuksa dks Lo;a izekf.kr djsA ¼14½ fof’k”Vh Ø- 14 ¼pkSng½ ds laca/k esa %& izek.k ,oa nLrkost ds vHkko esa ;g vLohdkj gS fd eksVjlkbZfdy Øa- ,e ih 09 ,y ds 9813 ls ?kVuk ?kfVr gqbZ gSA izkFkhZ izekf.kr djsA 4. The learned Tribunal on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:- Ø- okn iz’u fu”d”kZ 1- ¼v½ D;k ?kVuk fnukad 17-5-07 le; 7&8 cts ds chp bankSj mTtSu jksM jkek QkLQsLV QSDVªh /kjeiqjh ds chp Fkkuk lkaosj ij vuk- Ø- 1 us okgu eksVjlkbZfdy izekf.kr ugha Ø- ,e ih 9 ,y ds 9813 dks rsth o ykijokgh iwoZd pykdj izkFkhZ dks VDdj ekjdj nq?kZVuk dkfjr dh gS\ ¼c½ D;k mDr nq?kZVuk dkfjr gksus esa izkFkhZ dks Hkh nq?kZVuk bl va’knk;h mis{kk jgh gS \ okgu ls izekf.kr u gksus ls izek.k dh vko’;drk ugha gSA 2- D;k mDr nq?kZVuk esa vkbZ pksVksa ds dkj.k izkFkhZ dks LFkk;h v;ksX;rk dkfjr gqbZ gS \ 3- D;k ?kVuk fnukad dks vuk- Ø- 1 ds ikl okgu pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Mªkbfoax yk;lsUl uk gksus ls chek ikfylh dh ‘krksZa dk mYya?ku gqvk gS \ 4- D;k izdj.k esa i{kdkjksa ds vla;kstu dk nks”k gS \ 5- D;k izkFkhZ izfrdj ikus dk ik= gS \ ;fn gka rks fdruh ,oa fdu lsA 6- lgk;rk ,oa okn O;;A isjk 2] 3 vuqlkj fooknxzLr okgu ls nq?kZVuk gksuk izekf.kr u gksus ls fujLr fd;k x;kA 5. After examining the documents available on record and going through the evidence led by the parties the Tribunal came to the aforesaid conclusion. With respect to Issue No.1, the relevant observations are as follows:- mijksDr leLr foospu ds ifj.kkeLo:i laHkkoukvksa dh cgqyrk ds vk/kkj ij ;gh izekf.kr gksrk gS fd vkosnd dh ;g nq?kZVuk fnukad 17-5-06 dh ‘kke dks 5-00 cts LdwVj dk isM+ ls Vdjkus ds dkj.k gqbZ gS vkSj 19 fnu i’pkr~ vukosnd@okgu pkyd tks mlds ?kj dk iM+kSlh gS] mldh eksVjlkbZdy dk uacj fy[kkdj Dyse izkIr djus ds fy, vlR; :i ls fjiksVZ fy[kkbZ gSA ;gh ugha cfYd mDr vkijkf/kd izdj.k esa jkthukek dj fy;k gS vkSj U;k;ky; esa Hkh vkosnd us vkjksih fuys’k ds fo#) dksbZ dFku ugha fn;k gS vkSj ykijokgh u ekus tkus ls nks”keqDr dj fn;k gSA vr% okn iz’u Øekad 1&v izekf.kr ugha ik;k tkrk gSA nq?kZVuk vukosnd Lo;a dh ykijokgh ds dkj.k ?kfVr gksuk izekf.kr gksus ls okn iz’u Øa- 1&c izekf.kr ik;k tkrk gSA 6. In view of the aforesaid findings which are based upon the evidence which have come on record merely because the driver of the offending vehicle admitted his guilt, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was involved in the accident. In view of the aforesaid findings which are based upon the evidence which have come on record merely because the driver of the offending vehicle admitted his guilt, it cannot be presumed that the vehicle was involved in the accident. There is no explanation as to why the FIR was not registered immediately after the incident or in the reasonable time. It is also not explained as to why the number of the vehicle was not intimated to the doctor when the MLC was prepared. Thus the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal it was a collusive case. 7. In these circumstances, there is no reason to interfere in the award given by the Tribunal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.