JUDGMENT 1. Both the appeals arise out of the common judgment and award, hence same are being decided together by this common judgment. 2. These appeals have been filed against the judgment and award dated 22.07.2010 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur in MAC No.308/2009 (hereinafter referred to as ’Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,79,763/- in favour of the claimantrespondent on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident occurred on 17.07.2009. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the accident occurred on 17.07.2009 in front of the Police Station but the FIR was lodged after a delay of eighteen days i.e on 04.08.2009. counsel further submitted that no explanation about delay in lodging FIR has been given by the claimant-respondent. He also submitted that in his crossexamination, the claimant has admitted that after the accident, he went to the Police Station but even then he did not lodge the FIR. 4. He further submitted that the vehicle was seized by the police after a lapse of long time and mere filing of charge-sheet is not sufficient in motor accident case to get compensation. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the cases of Smt. Savitri Devi vs. Ramesh Chand : 2006 (3) T.A.C. 745, Lalit Chouhan Vs. Shakeel Mohd : 2007 (1) T.A.C. 899 , Mala Ram vs. Roopa Ram : 2004 R.A.R 543 (Raj.), Rajender Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. : (2007) 1 (Raj.) MACD 361 and Kokila Bai Vs. Abdul Bahav : 1 (2005) ACC 458 (DB). 6. Lastly, he argued that no eye-witness of said accident was examined and circumstances narrated above create doubt about the involvement of the vehicle. Hence the Tribunal has committed gross error in allowing the claim petition filed by the claimantrespondent. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the appellantInsurance Company and submitted that the accident occurred on 17.07.2009 and the same was caused by the driver of Car bearing No. RJ-14-CE-7871 and immediately after the accident, the claimant-respondent went to the Police Station but he was not in a position to write and lodge the FIR because of the pain and injuries suffered by him. 8. 8. He further submitted that after the accident, the claimantrespondent was admitted in Agrawal Hospital, Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur on the same day i.e. 21.07.2009 and it was noted by the doctors of the hospital that the claimant-respondent has sustained injuries in road traffic accident which was occurred on 17.07.2009. Thereafter, he remained admitted in the said hospital till 28.07.2009 and after recovery he lodged the FIR on 04.08.2009. He further submitted that mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground for denial of compensation. 9. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court delivered in the case of Ravi Vs. Badri Narayan : (2011) 4 SCC 693 . 10. He also submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 have been proved beyond doubt and it is established by cogent evidence that the insured vehicle in the present case was the only vehicle with which the said accident occurred and the claimant-respondent has sustained injuries. Thus, the findings arrived at by the Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity. 11. Heard and considered the arguments of both sides. 12. From perusal of the statements of the claimant-Om Prakash Soni, it is clear that he was hit by Car No. RJ-14-CE-7871 on 17.07.2009 due to which he sustained injuries and immediately after the accident, he went inside the Police Station but could not write and lodge the FIR due to pain and injuries suffered by him and thereafter the police personnel of Police Station took him into the hospital where there was only one doctor who refused to provide the treatment to him. Thereafter, he was taken to another hospital where he was admitted and treatment was given to him and he was discharged from the hospital on 28.07.2009 and thereafter recovery, he lodged the FIR. If there was any lapse on the part of the police personnel for not lodging the incident in their Rojnamcha then the claimant cannot be blamed for the same. 13. The accident occurred in front of the Police Station and immediately after the accident, the injured-Om Prakash went inside the Police Station but he could not write the report due to the injury suffered by him thus, there was no occasion available with the claimant-respondent to lodge the FIR when he was under treatment in the hospital. 13. The accident occurred in front of the Police Station and immediately after the accident, the injured-Om Prakash went inside the Police Station but he could not write the report due to the injury suffered by him thus, there was no occasion available with the claimant-respondent to lodge the FIR when he was under treatment in the hospital. He remained hospitalised w.e.f 17.07.2009 and after discharge and recovery, he lodged the FIR on 04.08.2009. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi (supra) has categorically held that delay in lodging in FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claim of the injured/deceased. 15. There is no force in the contentions raised by counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that no eye-witness of the accident was produced in support of the claim petition filed by the injured. The claimant himself is the injured eye-witness of the accident with whom the accident occurred in the aforesaid accident. So, there is no reason to disbelieve on the testimony/statement of the claimant. This is not in dispute that after lodging of the FIR, charge-sheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle after investigation before the competent court of law. 16. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, the Tribunal has decided the issue No.1 in favour of the claimant-respondent and against the appellant-Insurance Company. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.1 do not require any interference by this Court and the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation. 17. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant- Insurance Company stands dismissed. 18. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) dismissed. 19. So far as the appeal (CMA No. 2114/2010) of the claimantappellant is concerned, the counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the award has been assessed on a lower side and the same is required to be enhanced suitably. The counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the claimant-appellant has sustained 27.5% disability and in this regard, the Medical Board of three Doctors of Dhanwantri Hospital, Mansarovar have issued a certificate and genuineness of the same cannot be doubted. The counsel for the claimant-appellant submitted that the claimant-appellant has sustained 27.5% disability and in this regard, the Medical Board of three Doctors of Dhanwantri Hospital, Mansarovar have issued a certificate and genuineness of the same cannot be doubted. He further submitted that in the aforesaid accident, he remained hospitalised for a period of about 10 days and during that intervening period, he has suffered loss of income so the amount of compensation needs suitable enhancement by this Court. 20. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the claimantappellant and submitted that there was a racket going on in Dhanwantri Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur and in other hospitals. The co-ordinance Bench of this Court has taken cognizance in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Vishnu : (2012) 2 CCR 1413 about the said racket and disbelieved of the disability certificate issued by the aforesaid hospital. He further submitted that the claimant-appellant has failed to adduce and produce any cogent and reliable evidence about the loss of income suffered by him during the intervening period. 21. Lastly, he submitted that no reliance can be placed on such concocted disability certificate issued by the Dhanwantri Hospital and the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper which does not require any interference by this Court. 22. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar : (2011) 0 ACJ 1 and Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh : (2008) 8 Scale 497 . 23. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. 24. Looking to the facts of the aforesaid case, the claimantappellant remained hospitalised w.e.f 17.07.2009 and was discharged on 28.07.2009 and in between he was taken to Community Health Centre Thanagazi where only the pain was found on the lower Lumbar Region. 25. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained by the claimantappellant, award passed by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and no reliance can be placed on the disability certificate (Ex.44) issued by Dhanwntari Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur in view of the judgment passed by this Court delivered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra). 26. 25. Hence, looking to the injuries sustained by the claimantappellant, award passed by the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and no reliance can be placed on the disability certificate (Ex.44) issued by Dhanwntari Hospital, Mansarovar, Jaipur in view of the judgment passed by this Court delivered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra). 26. Hence, this Court is of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant-appellant is just and proper which requires no interference. 27. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. 28. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) dismissed.