ORDER : This miscellaneous appeal filed by appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act is arising out of the award dated 28.10.2021 passed by Additional MACT, Dharampuri, District- Dhar in Claim Case No.139/16 claiming exoneration of liability of the appellant/insurance company. 2. Brief facts of the case is that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are wife and son of the deceased – Balram. On 23.02.2015, Balram was going on motorcycle being driven by his son-Amit (appellant No.2/respondent No.2). The motorcycle was being driven rashly and negligently by Amit due to which Balram fell down and suffered grievous injuries. He was hospitalized for long period but did not come out of comma and died during the pendency of the claim application. It is further alleged that deceased was aged 40 years and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The compensation was claimed on various grounds. The owner/driver proceeded exparte before the tribunal. Appellant/insurance company filed their written statement and stated that F.I.R. is lodged with delay of 3 months of the accident and applicant's son/son of the deceased did not suffer any injuries and false claim has been lodged. It has been further submitted that claimants filed false report before police station for claiming compensation. 3. Tribunal framed issues and after recording evidence held that accident involved insured motorcycle and awarded a sum of Rs.8,70,600/-. Being aggrieved by this, appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that tribunal has grossly erred in holding the accident as alleged by the applicants without there being any evidence on record to prove the case of the applicant. He further submitted that appellant No.2 is son of the deceased and was also the driver as alleged and is also respondent No.2. A person cannot be a claimant and person claimed from. It is evident that accident must have been caused by deceased himself and subsequently to claim the benefit of the policy issued for the motorcycle, the deceased was shown as a pillion rider and son as the driver, as in the initial documents, nothing has been stated about the accident, nor the intimation to police disclosed the accident. The F.I.R. was lodged after 3 months of the accident and claimant did not explain the delay caused in lodging F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company prays for exoneration of the liability of the insurance company. 4. The F.I.R. was lodged after 3 months of the accident and claimant did not explain the delay caused in lodging F.I.R. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company prays for exoneration of the liability of the insurance company. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimants submitted that it is true that F.I.R. was lodged with delay but they have properly explained the delay. He has placed reliance upon a decision of this Court in M.A. No.778/2017 (Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Subhash Singh and Others) dated 03.03.2020 in which coordinate Bench of this Court has held that it is well established principle of law that merely delay in lodging F.I.R. is not sufficient to disbelieve the case. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 6. It is true that if the claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reason for delay in lodging the F.I.R. then delay in lodging F.I.R. should not be treated as fatal for such proceeding. The Apex Court in case of Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Others AIR 2011 SC 1226 in para 20 and 21 has held as under:- 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. 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. 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 is primarily 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. 7. It reveals that in the present case, accident occurred on 23.02.2015. According to pleading of the claimants, vehicle was driven by son of the deceased and owner of the offending vehicle is nephew of the deceased. But, neither driver of the offending vehicle, nor owner of the offending vehicle informed the police in due course. Information of accident was also not sent by the hospital to the police station. On 10.05.2015, wife of the deceased filed a written application before police station and informed the police that her husband received injuries due to accident on 23.02.2015 and admitted in hospital for treatment. She presented herself and her nephew-Sanjay as eye witnesses in written complaint. In present case, vehicle was from the family of the deceased, owner and driver of the vehicle are nephew and son of the deceased but no one bothered to inform the police in regard to accident. They all were aware about the accident and registration number of the offending vehicle, however, did not inform the police. In present case, vehicle was from the family of the deceased, owner and driver of the vehicle are nephew and son of the deceased but no one bothered to inform the police in regard to accident. They all were aware about the accident and registration number of the offending vehicle, however, did not inform the police. It is true that mere delay in lodging F.I.R. is not a ground to disbelieve the accident. It is also true that if police files charge-sheet after investigation against the driver of the offending vehicle, tribunal can presume that accident was done by driver of the offending vehicle but theses presumptions are rebuttable. 8. In the present case, owner and driver are family members of the deceased and offending vehicle is also from the family of the deceased. Eye witnesses are also from family members of the deceased but, no one has informed the police about accident from 23.02.2015 to 10.05.2015. So it creates too much doubt about the accident occurred by driver of the offending vehicle. So, in view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, implantation of offending vehicle for seeking compensation cannot be ruled out. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the considered opinion of this Court, tribunal has committed error in holding that accident was occurred by driver of the offending vehicle so findings recorded by the tribunal in this regard are set aside and appellant/insurance company is exonerated from the liability. Accordingly, present appeal stands allowed.