The central legal point established is that a compensation claim cannot be defeated solely based on the claimant's failure to fulfill duties imposed by the Motor Vehicles Act, such as informing the police or delay in doing so.

B.P. Katakey, J.

1. By these 2(two) appeals, the claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 5.8.2005 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dimapur in MAC Case Nos. 66 and 67 of 2003 dismissing the claim of the claimants/Appellants for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act').

2. The facts in brief is that the Appellants as claimants, filed MAC Case Nos. 66 and 67 of 2003 before the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaland claiming that on 25.10.2002 while they were going on a bicycle towards Purana Bazar Dimapur, a Scooterist driving the Scooter No. NL-05/5216 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bicycle and as a result of which they suffered bodily injuries for which they had to be hospitalised for necessary treatment. It has further been averted in the claim petitions that they could not inform the Police in time because of the treatment taken by them in different hospitals; but ultimately after about 5(five) months, precisely on 30.3.2003 they informed the Dimapur Police on the basis of which G.D. entry No. 176/03 was registered and the Police upon investigation submitted a report dated 31.3.2003 to the effect that the accident occurred and arising out of which the Appellants suffered bodily injury. Thereafter another report dated 19.8.2003 was submitted by the Investigating Agency certifying that the accident did not occur in Purana Bazar area; but somewhere in Assam. The owner-cum-driver and the Insurance Company on receipt of summons filed a written statement. The owner in the written statement has admitted the accident stating that the accident occurred in Purana Bazar area in Dimapur on 25.10.2002 and the Appellants received bodily injury arising out of the use of the said motor vehicle. It has further been contended in the written statement that the vehicle was duly insured by the Insurance Company, the present Respondent No. 2 by issuing a valid policy of Insurance covering the risk of the third party and therefore if any amount is payable as compensation, the Insurance Company has to indemnify the owner. The Insurance Company also filed a written statement denying the claim of the claimants in the claim petitions. The claimants in support of their claims examined themselves, the Doctor who treated them as well as their employer to prove their monthly income. The owner was also examined as DW1 in both the cases. The Insurance Company also examined 2(two) witnesses, viz., the Insurance Investigator and Investigating officer who conducted the investigation on the basis of the G.D. entry No. 176/03. The learned Tribunal thereafter by the impugned judgment and award rejected the claim petitions filed by the claimants and hence the present appeals.

3. I have heard Mr. B.N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Appellants/claimant. Mr. A.R. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. T.B. Jamir, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, Insurance Company.

4. Mr. B.N. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petitions filed by the claimants/Appellants basically on the ground of delay in filing the First Information to the Police, which was lodged after about 5(five) months of the date of occurrence. It has further been submitted that the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the accident solely on the basis of Second Police Report submitted by the DW3 on 19.8.2003 even though DW3 in his deposition made a categorical statement that the said Police Report was submitted by him as per instruction of his superior officer and he was made to sign the said Police Report prepared by such superior officer. It has further been submitted that the learned Tribunal has presumed that there was no accident solely on the ground that there was no information given by the Driver of the Motor Vehicle/Scooter as required under Section 134 of the Act, the