JUDGMENT The appeal is of the year 2010. Hardit Singh – appellant pending the appeal died and, therefore, by an application, the legal heirs of the deceased – appellant were brought on record as appellant No. 1 – Agya Kour, Appellant No. 2 – Jatinder Singh, Appellant No. 3 – Pushpinder Singh, Appellant No. 4 – Gurvinder Kour and Appellant No. 5 Gurcharan Kour. The matter was heard earlier and it has been adjourned at the request of counsel for the appellant. The case of the deceased –appellant Hardit Singh is that on 27.06.2001, he was going to his house on foot and walking on roadside at Rohini Morh (Lower Gadi Garh), Jammu-R.S.Pura Route. At about 9.30 am, a passenger bus bearing number JK02B – 3439 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver hit the appellant causing multiple injuries. He could not walk. He was given local treatment and thereafter admitted in Government Medical College, Jammu on 09.07.2001 and was discharged on 28.07.2001. He has a permanent disability assessed at 30%. The FIR in this case was registered on 20.08.2005 as FIR No. 110 by SHO Miran Sahib in respect of the accident which happened on 27.06.2001, i.e. nearly after four years. He filed a claim petition on 10.09.2005 which was considered on merits and following issues were framed- “1. Whether an accident occurred on 27.06.2001 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK02B/3439 in the hands of erring driver in which petitioner Hardit Singh sustained grievous injuries? OPP 1.1 If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioner is entitled to the compensation; if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 2. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid and effective driving license and drove the vehicle in contravention of terms and condition of insurance policy? OPR-2 3. Relief. OP Parties On the first issue, the Tribunal considered the evidence of PW- Shalinder Sharma and stated that Hardit Singh was aged about 70 years and he was admitted on 09.07.2001 as a known case of post polio residual palsy left lower limb with fracture neck of femur left and also stated about the details of Medical treatment and disability of Hardit Singh. Another witness – Pardeep Singh stated that on 27.06.2001, he was walking on the road side and the vehicle in question was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner hit the appellant who was walking on his own side. He sustained injuries including fracture on his hip-joint (left). PW-Manohar Singh was also examined as witness and he also stated that Hardit Singh was walking on the road side and he saw the accident. Both the statements are identical. In the cross – examination, the witness stated that he did not know who else was present at the time of accident and whose statement was recorded. He, however, given the statement in the year 2005. He stated that he has come to the Court at the request of the petitioner and made the statement. Another witness PW-Parambir Singh also stated that he was walking on the road side on 27.06.2001 and the offending vehicle hit the injured claimant. He also stated that the injured claimant was admitted in GMC, Jammu. In cross examination, he stated that he did not inform the Police about the occurrence and he cannot identify any person present on spot at the time of occurrence. The Tribunal primarily disbelieved the belated FIR that is registered after four years. The Tribunal on assessing the evidence of the Doctor and the Certificate was of the view that it was a case of claimant’s suffering from post polio residual palsy left lower limb with fracture of neck of femur left. The Tribunal came to hold that all the three witnesses were not able to identify each other having been present at the time of occurrence and therefore, it is a make believe evidence to support a false claim. The medical records also does not support the claim of road accident and, therefore, the first issue was answered against the petitioner. Consequently, the other issues did not require consideration as the main claim has been negated on account of lack of evidence. On consideration of the plea made in the appeal, the evidence of the witnesses and that of medical record coupled with the fact that there is delay of more than 4 years in registering the FIR in an accident which happened on 22.07.2001, I find that the Tribunal was justified in disallowing the claim for want of clarity in the plea of road accident. Further the witnesses were also found not reliable and stereotyped. The delay in registration of FIR has not been properly explained. There is no medical record to show continuous medical treatment except the Doctor’s Certificate and one follow up record which is not relevant to conclude that the injury was due to a road accident. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the appeal. I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.