Vineet Kothari, J.
1. This appeal has been filed by the claimant-appellant being aggrieved by the rejection of his claim petition vide order dated 19.5.1997 passed by the MACT, Doongarpur rejecting claim case No. 86/1996. The accident in question took place on 23.9.1995 while he was travelling with his brother Moti Lal in jeep No. GJ-9/94 from Udaipur to Doongarpur and at about 9:00 PM near the turn of Gamdi Bus Stand on account of rash and negligent driving of the said jeep, it collided with pillar and fell down in a pit and on account of the said accident, the claimant Kanti Lal suffered injuries for which the present claim petition was filed by him.
2. Learned Tribunal has rejected the claim petition on the ground of alleged accident of the bus No. RJ 12/P-0076 which used to be driven by the appellant himself as driver and the said bus also fell in the ditch on 2.9.1995 about 21 days prior to the accident in question by the jeep on 23.9.1995. The learned Tribunal has rejected the claim on the ground that since the FIR, for the accident in question dated 23.9.1995 by the jeep in the question, was lodged much belatedly after 2 months on 3.12.1995 and the police did not find any symptoms of the accident at the said site in question and the claimant was also admitted in Shamlaji Hospital about 25 km away but not in Doongarpur, therefore, the trial court felt that the accident dated 23.9.1995 was a make believe story and, therefore, the Tribunal rejected the claim petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant claimant drawing the attention of the Court towards medical evidence produced before the learned Tribunal submitted that the appellant was admitted in General Hospital Samlaji, vide Exhibit 1 on 24.9.1995 itself and was discharged from there on 6.10.1995 and in the said prescription Exhibit 1 the fracture of neck femur and fracture of ribs inside were duly noted by the Doctor concerned. He has further submitted that the appellant paid Rs. 10,430/-to Dr. Rangam C. Shah of Orthopedic Hospital, Himmat Nagar vide Exhibit 3 for operation which took place on 8.11.1995. Some of the bills of various medical stores showing purchases of medicines in the name of appellant ranging from the date between 29.9.1995 to 20.11.1995 have been produced.
4. The leaned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submits that merely on the basis of statement of Moti Lal, PW-2, brother of claimant, who in his cross-examination admitted that the accident of bus in question also took place on 2.9.1995, the learned trial court could not altogether reject the real accident of the jeep which took place on 23.9.1995 and claimant suffered injuries of which sufficient medical evidence was before the Tribunal and the claimant having undergone the treatment from 24.9.1995 to 6.10.1995 in General Hospital, Samlaji, Distt. Sabar Kantha (Gujrat) and later in Himmat Nagar (Gujrat), which is admittedly near the village Doongarpur (Rajasthan) of the appellant.
5. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, however, opposes the present appeal and submits that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the said claim as the real injuries to the claimant had taken place in the accident with bus which took place on 2.9.1995.
6. Having heard learned Counsels and upon perusal of the record, it appears to this Court that the story of accident with the jeep taking place on 23.9.1995 does not appear to be a false or make believe story. The medical evidence produced by the claimant on record prima facie indicates that soon after the accident on 23.9.1995, he remained admitted in General Hospital of Shamlaji from 24.9.1995 to 6.10.1995 and had also undergone treatment at Manav Orthopedic Hospital, Himmat Nagar. Had he suffered these injuries on 2.9.1995 itself in bus accident, he would not have remained admitted much later on in General Hospital at Samlaji from 24.9.1995 to 6.10.1995. No evidence was brought on record before the Tribunal by any of the defendants or any non-applicant to establish that he had undergone any such treatment immediately after 2.9.1995 to 23.9.1995. Merely because the FIR was lodged in the present case belatedly on 3.12.1995 the version of the claimant of accident of jeep taking place on 23.9.1995 could not be treated as false.
7. Consequently, the claim petition of the appellant appears to have been wrongly rejected by the learned Tribunal. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order of the MACT, Doongarpur dated 19.5.1997 rejecting the claim No. 86/96 is set aside and the matter is restored back to the said Tribunal to decide the same afresh in accordance with law preferably within a period of one year from today. The parties may appear in the first instance before the learned Tribunal on 18.8.2009 and thereafter the learned Tribunal shall proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.