JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 14.10.2017 passed by the Tribunal, whereby claim petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants. Appellants had been successful in proving their case. 3. Claimants had filed the claim petition seeking compensation on account of death of Samartha Lal in the motor vehicle accident, which had occurred on 18.05.2011. It was the case of the claimants that on 18.05.2011 Samartha Lal was driving motorcycle bearing No. RJ-29-SE-8457. Appellant No. 3 was the pillion rider on the said motorcycle. At about 1.00/1.30 p.m. when they reached near village Devti, a tractor bearing No. RJ-29- R-3326 driven by respondent No. 1 came from opposite direction and by coming on the wrong side of the road, struck against the motorcycle driven by Samartha Lal. As a result, Samartha Lal and Lallu Ram suffered injuries. Injured were removed to the hospital. Samartha Lal died on 25.05.2011. 4. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellants has taken into consideration the fact that FIR in the present case was lodged on 01.06.2011, although, accident had allegedly occurred on 18.05.2011. Lallu Ram was medically examined on 01.06.2011. Learned Tribunal rightly held that it was strange that a person who had suffered fracture of his ribs would start getting treatment after registration of the FIR. It has also been noticed by the Tribunal that on 19.05.2011 Kaluram brother of the deceased had informed Police Station Hanumangarh that his brother was admitted in the hospital as accident was caused by motorcycle. 5. Thus, as per the first information report received by the police with regard to the accident, there was no mention that the deceased was driving the motorcycle and accident had occurred due to negligence of the tractor driver. Moreover, in case, Lallu Ram was accompanying the deceased, then he could have immediately lodged the FIR. Rather, FIR was got registered by Kaluram on 01.06.2011 alleging that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. Moreover, in case, Lallu Ram was accompanying the deceased, then he could have immediately lodged the FIR. Rather, FIR was got registered by Kaluram on 01.06.2011 alleging that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. It has been noticed by the Tribunal that, although, as per the FIR, Lallu Ram had also suffered injuries in the accident but Lallu Ram got himself medically examined on 01.06.2011 and started getting treatment after lodging of the FIR. 6. In these circumstances, learned Tribunal rightly held that the claimants had failed to establish that the accident in question had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1 while driving the offending vehicle. Dismissed.