The appellant was the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1398/2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. The said claim petition was submitted by him seeking compensation for the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 02.05.2004. According to him, the accident occurred when he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 16/3713 ridden by the 2nd respondent, he applied sudden break in a rash and negligent manner and as the consequence of the same, the appellant was thrown off to the road, thereby causing serious bodily injuries. The said motorcycle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances by the appellant seeking a total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2. The 3rd respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement, wherein they admitted the coverage of policy for the said vehicle. However, they denied the liability on various grounds. The quantum of compensation was also disputed by them.

3. The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A5 from the side of the appellant and from the side of the respondent Exts.B1, the copy of the policy was marked. After the trial the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the involvement of the motorcycle in the accident and also that he sustained injuries in the accident. The claim petition was thus dismissed. This appeal is submitted by the appellant in such circumstances, challenging the order of the dismissal.

4. Heard Sri.M.Dinesh M., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

5. The first question to be considered is whether the finding of the Tribunal holding that the vehicle insured with the 3rd respondent was not involved in the accident, is correct or not. To substantiate the accident, the appellant mainly places reliance upon Ext.A1 FIR registered by Venjaramoodu Police Station and Ext.A4 final report submitted by the Police after conducting investigation. However, the Tribunal did not rely upon the said documents, mainly on the reason that there was a delay of 87 days in registering the FIR. Besides the same, apart from Ext.A5 disability certificate, no other evidence was adduced to substantiate the same. However, after carefully going through the observations made in the award and the documents produced in the claim petition, I find force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant. Merely because of the reason that there occurred some delay in registering the FIR that by itself cannot be a ground to discard the case advanced by the appellant as such. The fact remains that the Police had indeed registered a crime, conducted an investigation and ultimately filed a final report implicating the 2nd respondent as an accused therein. As far as the contentions raised by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company is concerned, it could be seen that in the written statement, there is no specific denial of involvement the motorcycle in the accident. On the other hand, in paragraph 11 of the written statement they denied the averments made in the col. No.28 of the claim petition, and there is specific an averment that, there was no rashness or negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in driving the vehicle bearing Registration No.KL16/3713. Therefore, it is evident that, the 3rd respondent was not having a specific case as to the non- involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Therefore, it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to assume that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident, by placing reliance upon the delay of 87 days in filing the final report. It is also to be noted in this regard that in New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pazhaniyammal and others [2011 (3) KLT 648] a Division of this Court categorically observed that, the conclusions arrived at by the