R.S.CHAUHAN,J. - (1.) THE appellant has challenged the impugned award dated 16.5.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned Tribunal') whereby it has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant ostensibly on the ground that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR, and that there is animosity between the claimant and the driver of the offending vehicle.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 22.10.2000 when the appellant was coming back to his village Nayabas and was walking on the road, from the opposite direction a motorcycle, bearing Registration No. RJ -14I3 -M -5297, driven by the respondent No. 1, Vijay Pal, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellant. Consequently, the appellant suffered an injury on the left side of ribs as well as an injury on the nose. He had further suffered eighteen scratches on his nose. Due to the accident, his left leg was also fractured. He was hospitalised for nine days and it is after his discharge that the FIR had been lodged. In order to get some compensation for the said accident, the claimant had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. However, as stated above the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the said claim petition. Hence, this appeal before us. Mr. Rakesh Bhargava, the learned Counsel for the appellant, has argued that according to the reply submitted to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Act'), the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 2, had clearly admitted the factum of the accident. The said reply was submitted as Ex. 9 before the learned Tribunal. According to the learned Counsel, once the factum of accident is admitted, there is no reason for the learned Tribunal to disbelieve the case of the appellant.
(3.) ON the other hand Mr. L.N. Boss, the learned Counsel for the respondents, has argued that there is no evidence on record to show that such an admission was made voluntarily. The owner of the offending vehicle had admitted the factum of the accident in the police station. He has also emphasised on the fact that there is a delay of nine days in lodging of the FIR.;