JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeals have been filed aggrieved of judgment and Award dated 10.09.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in MAC Case Nos.357/2013 and 358/2013 respectively whereby the claim petitions as preferred by the claimants stood allowed. 2. The facts as averred in the claim petitions are that on 01.12.2012 one Gopal Bohra alongwith his sister Mamta, brother-in-law Manoj, and four nephew and niece, was travelling from Sridungargarh to Napasar in vehicle bearing registration No.RJ-07-GA-2840. At about 9:30 am, when they reached near Village Gusaisar on National Highway No.11, a Bolero bearing registration No.RJ-07-GB-1554, being driven rashly and negligently, while coming from the opposite side, took a sudden cut. Driver Gopal Bohra tried to avoid a collision and in the attempt, the vehicle overturned. Manoj and Mamta succumbed to the injuries during the course of treatment, on 02.12.2012 and 10.12.2012 respectively. FIR No.123/2012 was registered on 10.12.2012 at Police Station Napasar, District Bikaner pertaining to the said incident. 3. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date of accident. 4. It is relevant to note here that Manoj and Mamta were husband and wife. Both the claim petitions were filed by their minor children through their maternal grandmother. 5. After evaluating the evidence, an award amount of Rs.21,60,534/- was granted as compensation in Motor Accident Claim Case No.357/2013 pertaining to the death of Manoj i.e. father of the claimants. 6. An award of Rs.6,34,800/- was awarded in claim petition No.358/2013 pertaining to the death of Mamta, the mother of the claimants. 7. The learned Tribunal also awarded interest @7% per annum on the award amount with effect from 25.09.2013 i.e., the date of filing of the claim petition. 8. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved of the above awards. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that it was a clear case of fake involvement of vehicle as the FIR qua accident of 01.12.2012 was lodged on 10.12.2012 and no reason for the said delay was assigned. The FIR was lodged by Gopal Bohra and as per the said first information, the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of an unknown Pickup. No number of the alleged vehicle was reflected in the FIR. Meaning thereby, the vehicle in question was subsequently implicated. 10. The FIR was lodged by Gopal Bohra and as per the said first information, the accident occurred because of the negligence of the driver of an unknown Pickup. No number of the alleged vehicle was reflected in the FIR. Meaning thereby, the vehicle in question was subsequently implicated. 10. Learned counsel submits that the fact of the vehicle been falsely implicated is also fortified from the report of the Investigating Officer of the Insurance Company (Exhibit NW-1) as per which, the claimants and owner of the offending vehicle were residents of the same colony and were acquainted with each other. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that the testimony of alleged eyewitness Rauram (AW-3) was a concocted one. The said witness deposed that he followed the offending vehicle after the accident and even noted the number of the vehicle and the name of the driver. Further that, after chasing the offending vehicle for a while, he returned to the site and informed the police about the particulars of the offending vehicle. In the said circumstances, it is incomprehensible as to why the FIR was not lodged/registered on the same date and further, even when it was lodged, why was it against an unknown vehicle ? 12. Further, Rauram (AW-3), in his examination, stated that there was a collision between the insured vehicle and the Van whereas in the claim petition it was averred that the Maruti Van in an attempt to avoid collision with the offending vehicle coming from the opposite direction, overturned. 13. Counsel further submitted that there was a contradiction in the statements of Rauram as deposed before the learned Tribunal and the Criminal Court. Hence, the testimony of the said alleged eyewitness was not a reliable one. While relying on the judgment in RSRTC vs. Balbeer Singh & Anr. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 3851/2006 (decided on 21.01.2009) at Jaipur Bench, Counsel submitted that the testimony of Rauram did not corroborate with the documentary evidence such as FIR, Site Plan, etc. and thus, could not be relied upon. 14. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Shriram General Insurance Col Ltd. vs. Akeela Bano & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1710/2022 (decided on 17.01.2023) wherein it was observed that mere filing of a charge- sheet would not prove the fact of an accident by the alleged vehicle. 15. 14. Counsel further placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Shriram General Insurance Col Ltd. vs. Akeela Bano & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1710/2022 (decided on 17.01.2023) wherein it was observed that mere filing of a charge- sheet would not prove the fact of an accident by the alleged vehicle. 15. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the offending vehicle bearing Registration No. RJ-07-GB-1554, was involved in the accident. Regarding the delay in the FIR, learned Counsel submitted that the reason for the said delay was the most genuine one. The accident occurred on 01.12.2012 and both the injured, Manoj and Mamta were hospitalized. Manoj expired on the very next date i.e. 02.12.2012 and Mamta expired on 10.12.2012. The relatives were therefore busy in the treatment of Mamta till 10.12.2012 and were not in a position to lodge the FIR till 10.12.2012. Further, both the parents of the claimants who were the minor children, expired in an unfortunate accident and it cannot be presumed that in such a state of grief, the family members would be in a mental status to lodge an FIR. 16. Learned counsel submitted that it is only after 10.12.2012 that the statements of Rauram were recorded by the Investigating Officer and a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was served on the owner/driver of the offending vehicle and the vehicle was seized subsequently. 17. Counsel further submitted that the Investigation Report (Ex.NW-1) submitted by the appellant Insurance Company would be of no consequence as it was an admitted case that no personal inquiry was conducted by the investigator. He did not record the statement of any individual who confirmed the allegation of connivance between the claimants and the owner/driver of the vehicle and thus, the same is merely a fallacious ground raised by the appellant Insurance Company. In support of his submission, Counsel placed reliance on Regulations 12 and 13 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Insurance Surveyors and Loss Assessors) Regulations, 2015. 18. He further submitted that Pooja Joshi (AW.2) and Rauram (AW.3) specifically deposed that they had witnessed the accident and as per the version narrated by the witnesses in their statement, there was no stance to disbelieve the same. 18. He further submitted that Pooja Joshi (AW.2) and Rauram (AW.3) specifically deposed that they had witnessed the accident and as per the version narrated by the witnesses in their statement, there was no stance to disbelieve the same. Further, the FIR and Challan as filed by the Investigating Authority were not put to challenge by the owner/Insurance Company and hence, there was no ground to doubt the veracity of the police documents. 19. In support of his submissions, Counsel relied upon the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments of Janabai Wd/o Dinkarrao Ghorpade & Ors. vs. M/s ICICI Lambord Insurance Co. Ltd. (2022) 10 SCC 512 , Bimla Devi & Ors. vs. HRTC & Ors. (2009) 13 SCC 530 , Sunita & Ors. vs. RSRTC & Anr. (2020) 13 SCC 486 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Chamundeswari & Ors. (2021) 18 SCC 596 and the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Shyama Devi & Ors. (2020) 4 RLW 3346. 20. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 21. The material available on record reflects that an FIR (Exhibit.2) qua the accident was lodged by Gopal Bohra on 10.12.2012 against an unknown vehicle. During the process of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements and prepared the Naksha Mauka of the site. Subsequently, the statement of Rauram (AW-3) was recorded and based on the said statements, the offending vehicle was seized and notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was issued to the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, a Challan (Exhibit.3) was filed on 10.12.2012. A perusal of the Challan and the Seizure Report ¼QnZ tCrh½ makes it clear that even though the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle but the seizure of the offending vehicle was made by the Investigating Authority on basis of the statements of Rauram, during the course of investigation. 22. So far as the conduct of eyewitness Rauram (AW-3) and the credibility of his testimony is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that his conduct can in no manner be termed to be unreasonable or doubtful as he being a stranger, fulfilled his duty by informing the police about the details of the offending vehicle. Evidently, a stranger cannot have any control over the lodging of an FIR. Evidently, a stranger cannot have any control over the lodging of an FIR. The veracity of the statement of Rauram does not call for any suspicion also for the reason that there were no major discrepancy in his testimony. So far as the alleged contradiction in his statement before the learned Tribunal and before the Criminal Court is concerned, admittedly, he has not been confronted with his statements before the Criminal Court in the present proceedings by the Insurance Company. What to talk of confrontation, not even a suggestion has been put to him regarding his statements before the Criminal Court. Further, no such alleged statements of the said witness before the Criminal Court have been got exhibited in the present matter. In view of the same, there was nothing available before the learned Tribunal to hold the testimony of the said witness to be unreliable. 23. So far as the ground regarding the delay caused in filing the FIR is concerned, as is the settled position of law, delay in lodging the FIR cannot be termed to be fatal in each and every proceeding. If the claimant is able to demonstrate the satisfactory and cogent reasons for the delay caused in lodging the FIR, the delay cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. Reiterating the said principle, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others , 2011 (4) SCC 693 observed and 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. 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 to implicate 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.” 24. Applying the above ratio to the present matter, it is crystal clear on record that the claimants are minor children of both the deceased i.e. their mother and father. The mental status of the minor children at the loss of both their parents at one stance, must have been something far more than grief. The distress of not only the minor children but also of the close relatives of both the deceased would have been beyond imagination and it cannot be assumed that they would have been in such a composed status so as to lodge an FIR promptly. The delay in lodging the FIR in the present matter cannot be said to be fatal by any means and the learned Tribunal rightly adopted a holistic approach in not rejecting the claim petition on the said ground. The delay in lodging the FIR in the present matter cannot be said to be fatal by any means and the learned Tribunal rightly adopted a holistic approach in not rejecting the claim petition on the said ground. This Court is of the clear view that in the peculiar facts of the present matter, firstly, the delay in lodging the FIR could not have been termed to be fatal and secondly, even if there was any delay, the same was condonable and the learned Tribunal rightly did so. 25. So far as the Investigation Report (Exhibit-NA1) as relied upon by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is concerned, admittedly the Investigator/Surveyor failed to conduct any person inquiry or record statement of any independent witness while preparing the report. The Investigator did appear in the witness box and admitted the said fact. Therefore the ground raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the effect that there was a ruse between the claimants and the owner/driver of the offending vehicle, cannot be said to be proved in absence of any cogent evidence to the said effect. A mere averment of the Investigator and that too not based on any substantial proof, could not have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. This Court also finds the said ground as raised by learned counsel for the Insurance Company to be not a plausible one. 26. Further, as is the settled position of law, the learned Tribunal is not in stricto sensu bound by the rules of evidence. As held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Janabai’s case (supra) and Bimla Devi’s case (supra), a claim petition arising out of a motor accident has to be decided on basis of the evidence led before the learned Tribunal and not on basis of evidence which ought to have been led. The Tribunals while dealing with the Motor Accident Claims is under an obligation to adopt a holistic approach and to decide the issues on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 27. In view of the above observations and analysis, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings as recorded as well as the order impugned. 28. The present appeals are dismissed. 29. 27. In view of the above observations and analysis, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings as recorded as well as the order impugned. 28. The present appeals are dismissed. 29. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation (if not deposited yet) with the Tribunal within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the same shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. Upon deposition, the learned Tribunal is directed to disburse the same to the respondent-claimants in terms of the award. 30. Stay petitions and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.