ORDER Hirdesh, J. - This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company u/S 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved the award dated 31.03.2018 passed by MACT Raisen in claim Case No. MACC/100001/2016 whereby the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.10,78,000/- with interest to respondent No. 1 to 4 on the ground of death of Sunil Nath in motor accident which allegedly took place on 23.10.2015. 2. Brief facts of the case is that according to the claim petition the deceased Sunil nath aged about 35 years was coming from Raisen at the fitful moment on 23.10.2015, offending vehicle Tractor bearing reg. No. MP-38-AB-4101 dashed him while he was standing for urination on the road side at Gram Maser. Thus, Sunil Nath sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries. 3. Thus legal representative of the deceased filed claim petition for granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 58,00,000/- against the appellant as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicle. Driver of the offending vehicle filed reply and denied all the adverse allegations. He further pleaded that no accident occurred by his vehicle and with the collusion of police his vehicle was wrongly implanted for getting compensation. He also pleaded the he possessed valid and effective driving license and vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Appellant Insurance Company also filed reply and denied all the allegations and pleaded that insured vehicle was implanted to extort undue compensation and no accident occurred from the insured vehicle. Even the marg has been registered on the next day of accident. Different stories were mentioned in the Marg as well as in the claim petition. FIR was lodged on 04.11.2015 i.e. after 11 day of accident which also shows that the police played hand in gloves with the claimants and implanted insured vehicle to extort compensation. Insurance Company also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence therefore it is a case of breach of conditions of Insurance Policy, hence Insurance Company be exonerated. 5. Thereafter issues were and evidence was recorded. Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- to the claimants/respondent No.1 to 4. 6. Insurance Company also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence therefore it is a case of breach of conditions of Insurance Policy, hence Insurance Company be exonerated. 5. Thereafter issues were and evidence was recorded. Claims Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.10,78,000/- to the claimants/respondent No.1 to 4. 6. Being aggrieved by this order Insurance Company filed this appeal and submitted that the claimants examined only one eye-witness Pintu (AW-2) who given the deposition on oath that the accident occurred by the rash and negligent driving of the respondent No. 5 by insured vehicle bearing reg. No. MP-38-AB-4101. After examination before the Tribunal appellant -Insurance company came to know that the eye -witness Pintu (AW-2) has already given the deposition before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in which he has deposed that accident did not occur by the driver Gangaram. He was declared hostile before the Magistrate Court and did not identify accused driver Gangaram. Therefore appellant- Insurance Company filed an application for further cross examination of the eye - witnesses (AW-2) but after issuing notice to AW-2 he was not present before the Tribunal and and Tribunal closed the opportunity of the appellant. The conduct of Tribunal is not proper hence on this ground alone the appeal be allowed and award be set aside and matter be remanded back to the Tribunal. It is further submitted that there is delay in filing the FIR. Accident was occurred on 23.10.2015 and deceased died on the same day, marg was recorded on 24.10.2015 and FIR was registered on 04.11.2015 and there is no explanation was given for delaying the FIR. Driver and owner came to the collusion with the claimants, the false FIR was registered. It is further submitted that court has awarded higher side of the amount and amount is just and proper and awarded amount be reduced. On this above grounds this appeal be allowed and Insurance Company be exonerated and amount deposited by the Insurance company be refunded with interest. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contended that FIR was lodged promptly and after investigation police filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and driver appeared before the Tribunal during the trial and he did not dare to depose his evidence. 7. Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contended that FIR was lodged promptly and after investigation police filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle and driver appeared before the Tribunal during the trial and he did not dare to depose his evidence. He submits that Tribunal passed the award after due appreciation of evidence that came on record which requires no interference, hence prays for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company. 8 . Heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Tribunal. 9. Perusal of Ex.P/2 shows that FIR was lodged on 04.11.2015, and marg 69/2015 u/S 174 of Cr.P.C. was lodged on 24.10.2015. Ex.P/5 is the information given by hospital to the Chowki Hamedia, Bhopal in relation to the death of the deceased. Ex. P/7 i.e. Naksha Panchnama information of the Panch it is stated that death of deceased was occurred due to the accident. In the FIR Ex.P/2 it is especially mentioned that driver of the offending vehicle dashed the deceased and after investigation final report has been filed against the driver of the offending vehicle bearing reg. No. MP-38-AB-4101 u/S 304-A of the IPC. 10. Counsel for the appellant submits that FIR was lodged with delay and delay was not properly explained. But perusal of the Ex.P/2, P/5 it is found that accident occurred on 23.10.2015 and marg was registered on 24.10.2015 and after receipt of information from the hospital and after that FIR was lodged. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20, 21 has held - 20. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim. In cases of delay, the courts are required to examine the evidence with a closer scrutiny and in doing so; the contents of the FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully. If court finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered toimplicate innocent persons then, even if there is a delay in lodging the FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. 21. The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases isprimarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR.Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. 11. It reveals that as per record that date of accident was 23.10.2015 and information sent to the police by hospital is 24.10.2015 so it is not the delay in lodging the FIR. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons. 11. It reveals that as per record that date of accident was 23.10.2015 and information sent to the police by hospital is 24.10.2015 so it is not the delay in lodging the FIR. In present case, in the accident member of the family of the claimant has been died, we cannot expect that first to rash to the police station and lodge the report immediately after the accident, human nature and family responsibilities occupied in mind are that they give more importance to the victim treated rather than to rash to the police. So above discussion it is found that explanation of delaying the FIR is sufficient so, on the basis of delaying the FIR claim case has not been discarded. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted from the criminal court. In Rajjoo Yadav (Dr) versus Imrat Singh Alias Amrit Singh 2002 (II) M.P.W.N SN 24 coordinate Bench of this High Court Court has held that the acquittal of the accused in criminal trial does not absolve him from the liability of compensation. In P.Vera karnatka 2003 ACJ 1952 DB court has held that Tribunal is not bind by the finding of acquittal of criminal case. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that Tribunal has committed error in not giving opportunity to re-examine AW-2 Pintu. But perusal of the record of the Tribunal, it is found that Tribunal has given three or fourth time to appellant to produce AW-2 for cross examination but he does not appear before the Tribunal so Tribunal closed the opportunity of appellant, it seems that Tribunal has not committed any error to close the opportunity given to cross examine AW-2 (Pintu). 14. Insurance Company further submitted that he had filed document Ex.-D2, the statement of Pintu deposing before the court but perusal of this D-2 it is statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.taken by the police. AIR 208 MP 68 R.P. Gautam vs. R.N. Singh, it is held that it is settled proposition of law that every civil case is decided on it's own facts and evidence without influencing the papers and decision of the criminal case. AIR 208 MP 68 R.P. Gautam vs. R.N. Singh, it is held that it is settled proposition of law that every civil case is decided on it's own facts and evidence without influencing the papers and decision of the criminal case. In such premises registration of the offence and police investigation is not a condition precedent for awarding the claim. 15. So perusal of the evidence adduced in claim case before the Tribunal it is found that driver of the offending vehicle driven the vehicle rashly and negligently hit the deceased due to which deceased received the injuries on his various parts of the body and declared dead. Perusal of the record of the Tribunal it is found that driver of the offending vehicle was present during the trial before the Tribunal but he did not dare to adduce evidence and rebut the evidence produced by the claimant so presumption draw against him. 16. Learned counsel further submitted that Tribunal awarded higher side of compensation. Unless perusal of the award it is found that deceased was about 31 to 35 years old at the time of accident and Tribunal draw his income Rs. 5,000/- per month. Accident was occurred in the year 2015 so income of the decades was assessed by the Tribunal is not seen higher in side. 17. So perusal of the award of the Tribunal para 21 to 25 it is found that Tribunal awarded just and proper compensation and need no interference in amount of compensation. 18. Therefore, according to the aforesaid discussion, it is found that there is no substance in appeal filed by the appellant/Insurance Company, therefore, hereby appeal is dismissed.