JUDGMENT 1. Challenging the order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pratapgarh (hereinafter referred as "the learned Tribunal") in MACT Case No.10/2021 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant-appellant, the present appeal invoking the provisions of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the claimant-appellant. 2. The facts in nutshell as claimed in the claim petition are that on 26.12.2019, when the claimant-appellant alongwith one Nilesh Sharma was going to their home on a motorcycle, which was being driven by Nilesh Sharma and the claimant-appellant was a pillion rider and when they are reached at about 6 PM near the Dak Bunglow, the motorcycle bearing No. RJ 35 SJ 4360 (hereinafter referred as "the offending vehicle"), which was being driven rashly and negligently by driver of the offending vehicle Hariom, hit the motorcycle of Nilesh Sharma, resulting into simple and grievous injuries to the claimant-appellant. It was also claimed in the claim petition that an FIR No. 60/19 was registered at Police Station Pratapgarh, and after investigation, the Investigating Officer filed challan against Hariom alleging offences under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of the IPC. 3. After notice, the respondent Nos.1 & 2(Driver and Owner) submitted their reply jointly to the claim petition denying the averments made in the claim petition. It was claimed that a totally wrong claim has been made by the claimants in order to grab money from them. It was also claimed that the offending vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company and therefore, the Insurance Company, who would indemnify the award amount. On behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance company separate reply to the claim petition was preferred denying the averments made in the claim petition and an objection was made that the FIR was lodged after 40 days from the date of incident and, therefore, the case set up by the claimant-appellant is concocted one. 4. On behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance company separate reply to the claim petition was preferred denying the averments made in the claim petition and an objection was made that the FIR was lodged after 40 days from the date of incident and, therefore, the case set up by the claimant-appellant is concocted one. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed following issues:- 1& vk;k fnukad 26-12-2019 dks 'kke djhc N% cts LFkku thjks ekbZy ls ekuiqjk jksM dh rjQ Mkd caxyk ds ikl okgu eksVjlkbZfdy ctkt iYlj ua- vkj-ts- 35 ,lts 4360 ds pkyd foi{kh la[;k 1 gfjvkse us rstxfr] xQyr o ykijokgh ls ykdj lkeus vk jgh eksVjlkbZfdy ds VDdj ekj nh] ftlls eksVjlkbZfdy ij lokj jfoUnzflag ds 'kjhj ij lk/kkj.k rFkk xaHkhj pksVa vk;h \ &&ftEes izkFkhZ 2& vk;k oDr nq?kZVuk mDr okgu eksVjlkbZfdy ctkt iYlj ua- vkj-ts- 35 ,lts 4360 dks foi{kh la[;k&01 pyk jgk Fkk] tks fd okgu ds Lokeh foi{kh la[;k&02 ds fu;kstu esa gksdj dk;Zjr Fkk ,oa oDr nq?kZVuk mDr okgu foi{kh la[;k 03 }kjk chfer Fkk \ &&ftEes izkFkhZx.k 3& vk;k foi{khx.k }kjk izLrqr tokcnkok esa vafdr fo'ks"k vkifr;ka Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS] ;fn gka] rks bldk izHkko \ &&ftEes foi{khx.k 4& vk;k izkFkhZx.k izkFkZuk&i= esa vafdrkuqlkj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gSa \ ;fn gka rks fdl izdkj \ &&ftEes izkFkhZx.k 5& vuqrks"k \ 5. On behalf of the claimant-appellant, he himself produced as AW-1 and got exhibited as many as 56 documents whereas on behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company one Mr. Vimal Bansal was examined as NAW No. 1 and got exhibited as many as 9 documents. 6. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 to 3 against the claimant-appellant only on the ground that the FIR was lodged after 40 days from the date of incident. Hence the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant-appellant submits that the accident was occurred on 26.12.2019 at about 6 PM and since the appellant has suffered grievous injuries, therefore, he remained hospitalized at Choudhary Nursing Home, which is very much clear from Exhibit (21) and thereafter, he could lodge the FIR. Learned counsel submits that only on the fact that the FIR was lodged after 40 days, the claim petition cannot be rejected. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel submits that only on the fact that the FIR was lodged after 40 days, the claim petition cannot be rejected. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 9. I have perused the Exhibit-21-the discharge certificate issued by the Choudhary Nursing Home. A perusal of the discharge certificate it is clear that in front of heading="A/H/O" it has been mentioned that "RTA(PP) on bike collided: other bike at 7:00 PM on 26.12.2019 at Pratapgarh(Raj)". Thus, it is very much clear that on 26.12.2019, the accident was occurred and the bike over which, the petitioner was riding, collided with other bike. The investigating agency while investigating the FIR No.60/19 has also recovered the offending vehicle and thereafter filled challan. Therefore, it is very much clear that the accident was occurred on the relevent date, however, while deciding issue Nos. 1 to 3, the learned Tribunal failed to consider oral and documentary evidence available on record. 10. In my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has not appreciated the facts of the case specially Exhibit-21 and the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in a proper manner and passed the impugned judgment clandestinely. Thus, the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal needs interference by this Court. 11. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed; the impugned judgment and award dated 22.02.2022 passed by the learned Tribunal qua aforesaid issue Nos. 1 to 3 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter afresh as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order instant, in the light of grounds raised by the learned counsel for the appellant by way of the aforesaid appeal and the judgment to be cited by the learned counsel for the parties, if any, after issuing notice to all the concerned parties and giving opportunity of hearing to them. 12. The claimant-appellant shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 22.08.2022 and the learned Tribunal shall issue notices to the respondents-non claimants. 13. Record, if any, be sent back.