Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93997 Court No. - 2 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3334 of 2017 Appellant :- The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Thru Its Manager Respondent :- Smt. Rashi Devi And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari,Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the award dated 24.08.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Court No.11, Aligarh in MACP No.348 of 2016, whereby the tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.6,03,129/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of institution of claim petition for the death of one Banti alias Hemant Kumar in an accident on 09.08.2015 with Car No.DL4CAP/0721. 3. Challenging the award, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has erred in law in holding that the alleged accident had taken place by Car No.DL4CAP/0721 inasmuch as the first information report was lodged after about 7 months from the date of accident. It is submitted that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle and the Tribunal has erred in law in fixing the liability upon the appellant-insurance company to pay compensation. It is further contended that the claim petition has been instituted under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the negligence of the driver of the car was not proved and therefore, no award can be passed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is alleged that the post mortem report of the deceased was not filed and in absence of post mortem report, it could not be established that the deceased died due to injuries suffered in the accident. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the claimants/respondents have proved the accident by filing the cogent evidence on record which establishes that the deceased died due to injuries suffered in the accident. It is further contended that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car. It is contended that the post mortem report is not relevant. It is established that the deceased had died in the accident with car No.DL4CAP/0721. 5. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The claimants/respondents have proved the accident by producing P.W.-1 wife of the deceased. It is pertinent to note that the charge-sheet has been filed against the driver of the offending car. Though it is true that no independent eye witness was produced by the claimants/respondents to prove the accident but the material evidence on record namely charge-sheet and site plan of the accident corroborates the testimony of P.W.-1 and in such view of the fact, the delay in filing the F.I.R. is not fatal and it cannot be concluded on the basis of delay in filing the F.I.R. that the accident did not occur by car No.DL4CAP/0721. 7. So far as the issue of negligence is concerned, the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that the site plan of the accident clearly reveals that the accident was result of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the car No.DL4CAP/0721. The finding in this respect is a finding of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence on record and does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the claimants/appellants with regard to the post mortem report is concerned, the post mortem report is not relevant once it is proved that the accident had occurred by car No.DL4CAP/0721 and the death of the deceased resulted due to injuries suffered by him in the accident. 9. Thus, for the reasons given above, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 SSharma Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad