JUDGMENT : Kuldeep Mathur, J. 1. The present civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Jodhpur (Raj.) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.206/2017 whereby the learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition preferred by the appellants i.e. the claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 2. The unfortunate road accident happened on 01.11.2016 at about 11:00 A.M. when Hetaram @ Hetram (since deceased) was going to Hamir Phata Bus Stand on foot. A Bolero bearing registration No.RJ19-GC-5272 came around and hit Hetaram @ Hetram from behind and as a result whereof he suffered grievous injuries and died during the course of treatment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the claim preferred by the appellants was dismissed by the learned Tribunal in ignorance of the FIR, statements of the eye witnesses and other material produced before the learned Tribunal and mainly on the ground that the FIR was lodged after a delay of about one month; the proceedings under Section 133 & 134 of the MV Act were conducted on the very same day; deceased and the driver of the offending vehicle belong to the same caste and were residents of the same Tehsil etc. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed in ignorance of the facts and law applicable in the case and only on the basis of suspicion, without there being any foundation for the same. It was thus urged that the impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 be set aside and the respondents may be directed to pay the compensation to the appellants – claimants. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the following judgments: United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Smt. Shyama Devi & Ors. (S.B. CMA No.878/2012) Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Smt. Shubhla & Ors. (S.B. CMA No.1239/2019) Janabai & ors. Vs. M/s. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Limited (SLP (Civil) No.21077/2019) 4. Per Contra, Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 – insurance company submitted that in the present case, delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained by the claimants. Vs. Smt. Shubhla & Ors. (S.B. CMA No.1239/2019) Janabai & ors. Vs. M/s. I.C.I.C.I. Lambord Insurance Company Limited (SLP (Civil) No.21077/2019) 4. Per Contra, Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3 – insurance company submitted that in the present case, delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained by the claimants. Merely because the chargesheet has been filed by the investigating agency after conducting investigation, before the competent criminal court, the same is not sufficient to prove the negligence of the non-claimants. Learned counsel further submitted that initially, on 01.11.2016 the deceased was admitted in the M.D.M Hospital and after receiving the initial treatment, he was discharged on 03.11.2016. Thereafter, on 04.11.2016, he was again admitted to the hospital for treatment, whereupon his brother namely Om Prakash and his father-in-law namely Balwanta Ram informed the Hospital authorities in writing that they did not want to lodge any criminal case in the matter. 5. Learned counsel submitted that there is no evidence worth the name available on record of the case to prove that the alleged accident took place from a particular vehicle being driven by a particular driver and the claimants in the present case are trying to manipulate the case only with a view to get damages from the insurance company i.e. respondent No.3. He thus prayed for dismissal of the present appeal. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has placed reliance in the following judgments in support of his arguments: Ramchandra Vs. Ramchandra (CMA No.457/1999 Jansi Ram Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors report in 2014 2 ACC pate 743 Prakash Kumar @ Pukhraj Vs. Dungar Singh reported in 2012 Supreme Raj Pate 1410 Shabbeer Khan Vs. Gaurav Sharma reported in 2014 (1) DNJ Page 412 Mahendra Vs. Girdhari & Others (S.B. CMA No.4403/2009) Vijay Laxmi Devi & Ors. Vs. Ram Naresh & Ors. 2003 ACJ Page 1140 Pushpendra Singh Vs. Samay Singh @ Tofani & Ors. 2007(1) ACC Page 793 Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Akeela Bano W/o Late Sujauddin 2023(1) DNJ Page 431 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 7. The relevant portion of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 – insurance company is reproduced herein below for ready reference: 8. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal while deciding issues No.1 & 2, against the claimants reads as under: 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 7. The relevant portion of the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 – insurance company is reproduced herein below for ready reference: 8. The finding recorded by learned Tribunal while deciding issues No.1 & 2, against the claimants reads as under: 9. A bare perusal of the impugned award reveals that the conclusions drawn by the Tribunal are based on failure of the claimants in lodging of the FIR immediately after the accident. Much stress has been given by the learned Tribunal on the fact that the claimants and respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle belong to the same caste and are residents of the same Tehsil. 10. True it is, that lodging of the FIR immediately after an accident is desirable but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the road accident in the present case has taken place in a remote area, where the nearest Police Station might have been inaccessible. The record of the case shows that the FIR was lodged only when the appellants had filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police, after making a thorough investigation in the matter filed the chargesheet against the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle before the competent criminal court. The claimants have also placed on record the documents indicating that Hetaram @ Hetram after the accident was taken to a Government Hospital and was provided treatment for the injuries sustained by him. No reason whatsoever, has been given by the learned Tribunal for not accepting the factum of road accident to be correct, particularly when the documents issued by a Government Hospital were available on record. It is also to be noticed that an eye-witness of the incident was also examined on behalf of the claimants. Thus, the claimants have discharged their burden to prove the manner of accident. 11. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deciding the issue Nos.1 & 2 of the claim petition against the claimants on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR. Thus, the claimants have discharged their burden to prove the manner of accident. 11. Considering the material available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in deciding the issue Nos.1 & 2 of the claim petition against the claimants on the ground of delay in lodging of the FIR. Learned Tribunal was expected to analyse the entire evidence and material of the case as available on record and thereafter adjudicate upon the issues framed by it. 12. In the result, the present civil misc. appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 04.03.2021 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Tribunal for fresh decision on issues No.1 to 4, on the basis of the evidence and other material available on record and also keeping in mind the observations made by this Court in preceding Paras. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 20.08.2024. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the matter within 6 months from 20.08.2024. 13. The registry is directed to send back the record of the case forthwith. 14. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.