JUDGMENT 1. - Instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred by the claimant-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the award dated 25/06/2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal) in MAC Case No. 110/2005 (712/2003) by which the claim filed by the claimant-appellant has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts noticed are that the claimant-appellant, who was a student aged about 15 years, on 23/02/2003 at about 8.00 AM in the morning when he was going with his friend Naveen in a vehicle (Hero Puch Moped) and was crossing Malviya Nagar Bye-pass, Balaji Mode, at that time, a Tractor bearing No.RJ-14-1-R-1173, which was being driven by its driver in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner, came and hit Hero Puch Moped due to which the claimant-appellant is said to have got fracture in his leg and consequent thereto, the injury being severe, his leg had to be amputated. He also received certain other injuries. An FIR to this effect came to be lodged on 27/02/2003. The claim was filed claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 47,12,000/-. The Tribunal, after analysing the material and evidence on record, disbelieved the version of the claimant-appellant and rejected the claim by the impugned order. 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that the accident did occur on account of rash and negligent driving of Tractor by its driver Kalu Ram Bairwa. He further contended that the evidence, which has come on record, clearly proves that on account of the accident, the appellant got injured and at a tender age of 15 years, his leg had to be amputated and his entire life has come to a standstill and being a student, he has not only suffered his education but would also suffer on account of this disability for entire life, he claimed that he was a bright student. He further contended that though there is delay in lodging of FIR No. 70/2003 at Police Station Malviya Nagar on 27/02/2003 by 4 days but the delay was substantially explained and even owner of the vehicle has accepted under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act the contention of the appellant that the accident did happen on account of rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by Kalu Ram Bairwa. He further contended that the appellant had to be immediately rushed to SMS Hospital, Jaipur on 23/02/2003 itself. However, since the doctor opined that there is no alternate except to amputate his leg, therefore, his family members took him to another hospital namely; Rungta Hospital where he was admitted from 25/02/2003 to 10/03/2003. Even in the Rungta Hospital, the doctors opined about amputation of his leg and finding no alternate except to get the leg amputated, the family members had no option and got the appellant treated in Rungta Hospital, as again shifting back to SMS Hospital, his position would have worsened. He further contended that the Tribunal has disbelieved the version of the appellant on assumption and presumption and merely on surmises and conjectures and has not looked into the facts appropriately and the order of the Tribunal is perverse. He further contended that admittedly the leg had to be amputated and such technicalities in a case like this need not come in the way of a genuine claim to be disbelieved by the Tribunal. He further contended that all injuries prove that the appellant got injured on account of the accident and there is no iota of evidence to disbelieve the said version. He further contended that claim on merits deserves to be allowed as claimed by the claimant as the same is just and proper. He relied upon the judgments rendered in the case of Bimla Devi and others v. Satbir Singh and others: 2013(14) SCC 345 and Gurdeep Singh v. Bhim Singh and others: 2013(11) SCC 507 . 4. Per-contra, counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company contended that order of the Tribunal is just and proper and is not required to be interfered with as the Tribunal by an elaborate order after analysing each and every factor, has come to a correct conclusion. She further contended that admittedly the FIR was lodged on 27/02/2003 with the delay of almost four days and no reason is forthcoming as to why the FIR was lodged late. She further contended that it is claimed that the appellant was with Naveen who was driving the vehicle Hero Puch but Naveen was not produced before the Tribunal as a witness and he being the most crucial witness, was conveniently sidetracked by the claimant. She further contended that it is claimed that the appellant was with Naveen who was driving the vehicle Hero Puch but Naveen was not produced before the Tribunal as a witness and he being the most crucial witness, was conveniently sidetracked by the claimant. She further contended that if Hero Puch was hit, Naveen must have also been injured but no evidence is available of it. She further contended that even the appellant in his cross examination had stated that he was not treated in SMS Hospital whereas the claim throughout has been that the appellant was initially admitted in SMS Hospital on 23/02/2003 itself and remained admitted there upto 25/02/2003 and thereafter shifted to Rungta Hospital. She further contended that even the appellant expressed that at the time when the accident occur, the police authorities came on the spot but they did not file any complaint/FIR. She further contended that one Mukesh Kumar (AD-2), who claims to be an eye-witness, stated that he saw the accident and that Hero Puch was being driven in a slow speed and when the road was said to be empty, the Tractor hit the appellant and consequently, the appellant and Naveen got injured and he and Ved Prakash took Anil to Nearby Apex Hospital and admitted him in the emergency ward and the police also came on the spot and name and address was noted and this witness further stated that FIR was not lodged by him. Counsel further contended that when the version of the eye-witness, itself has been discarded and not proved, then the Tribunal has rightly come to the said conclusion. She further contended that even the appellant has chosen to delete name of the so-called Kalu Ram Bairwa who is said to be driving the offending vehicle from the array of respondents which proves that the claim itself was being lodged in connivance with the owner of the offending vehicle and the owner of the offending vehicle in a wrongful manner has merely accepted that he was owner of the offending vehicle. She further contended that overwhelming evidence is that though the accident may have occurred but not because of the offending vehicle and the appellant may have got injured on his own on account of his own negligence and taking shelter of the Motor Vehicles Act, claim was lodged which has rightly been discarded by the Tribunal. 5. She further contended that overwhelming evidence is that though the accident may have occurred but not because of the offending vehicle and the appellant may have got injured on his own on account of his own negligence and taking shelter of the Motor Vehicles Act, claim was lodged which has rightly been discarded by the Tribunal. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as also the record of the Tribunal and in my view, the Tribunal has come to a correct finding and has rightly disbelieved the version of the appellant. May be, it is a case where admittedly amputation of a leg has taken place and so also other injuries have been received by the appellant but in my view, the version of the appellant creates a doubt as there are contradictions in the claim of the appellant which is being analysed. 6. Admittedly, Naveen, who claims to be a friend of the appellant and who was driving Hero Puch Moped, where the appellant is said to be sitting behind as a pillion rider, has neither appeared in the witness box, has conveniently been ignored nor even named in the FIR. Though it is a claim of the appellant that he was admitted in SMS Hospital on 23/02/2003 and was there till 25/02/2003 but the records produced confirms that he was taken to Rungta Hospital on 23/02/2003 and not in SMS Hospital. The claimant, in the affidavit, has stated that he was carried to SMS Hospital whereas he himself denied in the cross-examination about the factum of SMS Hospital. In his cross-examination, at one place, he himself states that the police people had come on the spot at the time when the accident happened but again he denied later on that the police authorities did not come. Mr. Mukesh Kumar (AD-2), who claims to be an eye-witness at the time when the accident happened, states in his cross-examination that he did not lodge FIR. He further states that police recorded his statement but in his cross-examination, he states that when the police authorities came, the appellant was not on the spot. He was also not sure about colour of the Hero Puch Moped whether it was black or blue. He further stated that he carried appellant to nearby Apex Hospital. He further states that police recorded his statement but in his cross-examination, he states that when the police authorities came, the appellant was not on the spot. He was also not sure about colour of the Hero Puch Moped whether it was black or blue. He further stated that he carried appellant to nearby Apex Hospital. Admittedly, the so-called driver of the offending vehicle Kalu Ram Bairwa has been deleted from the array of respondents, which in my view, certainly goes against the claim of the appellant. It is also admitted fact that though it was claimed that Naveen Kumar, who was driving Hero Puch Moped, had also got injured but neither injury report of Naveen has been placed on record nor Naveen has chosen to appear on behalf of the appellant to assert about the accident, if any. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged on 27/02/2003 i.e. after four days though in such facts and circumstances, lodging of FIR with the delay of few days may not be fatal to disbelieve the version, however, even the site plan was made on 27/02/2003 when it is claimed on behalf of the appellant as well as one or two witnesses that the police authorities came on the spot, which in my view, is unbelievable as, if the police authorities had come on the spot, certainly they were duty bound to prepare a site plan. It is also admitted that the site plan has been prepared in the presence of one Lal Chand and Sharvan Kumar, however, both have not come into witness box and as has been observed earlier, though the claim is that the police authorities came on the spot and the police authorities did take into consideration the accident but no material has been placed on record about any action having been taken by the police on 23/02/2003. The evidence, which has come on record about the appellant being carried to SMS Hospital, Apex Hospital and Rungta Hospital has also been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and though some evidence has been led about the appellant having been carried and treated in SMS Hospital but his own version was that he was not treated in SMS Hospital. Even Mukesh Kumar (AD-2) though stated that Prakash carried Anil to Apex Hospital but there is no certificate or hospitalization of Apex Hospital which has been placed on record by the appellant. Even Mukesh Kumar (AD-2) though stated that Prakash carried Anil to Apex Hospital but there is no certificate or hospitalization of Apex Hospital which has been placed on record by the appellant. The Tribunal has also found that even in the charge-sheet Mukesh, who is said to be eye-witness and Ved Prakash (AD-4) have not been named in the charge-sheet and therefore, taking into consideration this factum also, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that they cannot be said to be eye witnesses. There are contradictions in between the version of the appellant, Mukesh, Teji and other witnesses. The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the version of the appellant as well as Mukesh and Teji whether the tractor was with trolley or without trolley and the version of the Anil and Mukesh contradicts the version of each other. The tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that there is no inspection report of Hero Puch Moped so as to prove as to what damage was caused to it on account of the alleged accident. It has already been taken into consideration herein above that in the FIR lodged by Sharvan Kumar and Lal Chand, it was stated that the police authorities had come on the spot and they had prepared the report to this effect but that report has not been placed on record before the Tribunal nor before this Court. The Tribunal has found that at the spot when the accident did happen, the Police Station of Malviya Nagar is just about one and half kilometers and though it is claimed that police authorities came but did not lodge FIR or any complaint which is unbelievable and no action has been taken by the appellant in this regard to approach higher police authorities or an appropriate court. In my view, after analysing the evidence which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and which has been analysed to a certain extent in this judgment, I am also of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion that the claim of the appellant was rightly disbelieved. In my view, after analysing the evidence which has been taken into consideration by the Tribunal and which has been analysed to a certain extent in this judgment, I am also of the opinion that the Tribunal has come to a correct conclusion that the claim of the appellant was rightly disbelieved. I have also not been able to find anything which comes to the conclusion about the accident having occurred on account of the alleged tractor, though admittedly, the appellant got injured and his leg had been amputated but not because of the alleged accident which is being claimed in the instant case. 7. Accordingly, in my view, the claim has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal and I do not find any infirmity or perversity in the order of the Tribunal so as to call for interference by this Court. 8. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. However, the amount of Rs. 25,000/-, which was allowed to the appellant on account of no fault liability and which has been directed by the Tribunal to recover from the appellant, in my view, does not hold good and the amount, which has already been received by the appellant, is not liable to be recovered from the appellant. No costs.Appeal dismissed. *******