Point of law: There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) No-2-cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 548/2005 dated 31.08.2012 awarding compensation in favour of the claimant amounting to Rs. 1,25,300/-(Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand and three hundred) only.

2. The insurer of the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the order by stating that no case was registered against the driver of the vehicle which made an accident causing injury to the claimant/respondent No. 1 in this case.

3. The brief facts of the case is that on 26.03.2004 at about 2:30 P.M. while the respondent No. 1/claimant was going from Geetanagar towards Noonmati Bazar on foot, he met with an accident at Noonmati when a Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Victor Motor Cycle) coming in a rash and negligent manner hit the respondent No. 1/claimant from behind. As a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person. After the accident, he was immediately taken to International Hospital, Guwahati and thereafter he was shifted and admitted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati for his treatment. Subsequently, he had undergone treatment at Popular Nursing Home, Patna. He incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) only for his treatment. At the relevant time of accident the alleged offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

4. The appellant as Opposite Party No. 2 in MAC Case No. 548/2005 has submitted written statement wherein, it is stated that the accident occurred on 26.03.2004 and G.D. Entry was recorded on 04.08.2005 after more than one year from the date of accident and no explanation has been made for causing delay in lodging the FIR and as such learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition.

5. After going through the record of MAC Case No. 548/2005, it reveals that the claimant examined two witnesses including himself and on the other hand insurer of the offending vehicle, also adduced one witness in support of their case. After completion of trial the learned Additional District Judge -cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup delivered the judgment as aforesaid. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order this appeal has been preferred.

6. It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant/respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR before Noonmati PS after about one and a half years of the alleged accident and thereafter no investigation was carried out by the concerned Police Station to ascertain the fact that the vehicle No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) was really involved in the alleged accident and thereby causing injuries to the respondent No. 1/claimant.

7. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal ignored the fact that in the Noonmati Police G.D. Entry No. 56 dated 04.08.2005 (Exhibit-A) there is no mention of the vehicle involved in the accident and there was no material before the Tribunal to hold that the vehicle No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) was involved in the accident causing injuries to the claimant/respondent No. 1. Moreover, no police case was registered against the rider of the Motor Cycle and as such in absence of any positive evidence of involvement of aforesaid vehicle, the claim case ought to have been dismissed and the appeal be allowed.

8. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a case law-New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hananiah Rabha & 7 Ors., reported in 2018(5) GLR 337.

9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant has argued that the injured could not lodge FIR within time as he was under treatment being suffered fracture on his both arms and the delay whatever was caused in lodging FIR was because of the reason of his treatment in Down Town Hospital, Guwahati and Popular Nursing Home, Patna and it was not deliberate. It is also argued that the reason of