This witness is not a direct witness to the accident and he merely gave evidence as per the version of the Insurance Company in its counter. In the instant case, though there is a delay of four days in lodging the FIR, the Police investigated into the offence and filed charge sheet against the driver of the car bearing No.GJ-2K-6632 . The certified copy of the FIR is marked as Ex.A-1 and the certified copy of charge sheet is marked as Ex.A-2. These documents clearly indicate that the Police after making thorough investigation into the case arrived at the conclusion that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing No.GJ-2K6632. In any event, the learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have considered the evidence of RW-1 since he was not a witness to the accident. Whereas PW-1 is a witness to the accident and as he furnished sufficient reasons for the delay in lodging the FIR, the learned Claims Tribunal ought to have believed the evidence of PW-1. The medical evidence forthcoming in this also discloses that soonafter the accident the appellant was shifted to the Hospital and underwent treatment. The learned Claims Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant inspite of his oral evidence and the documentary evidence; namely, Exs.A-1 FIR and Ex.A-2 charge sheet and the evidence of PW-2 doctor and Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4 medical certificates. The very fact that soonafter the accident, the appellant underwent medical treatment in Surya Orthopedic Nursing Home, Khammam, clearly indicates that he received injuries only in the accident. The said fact is also established from the
