Judgment 1. The appellant/insurer disputes its liability to pay the compensation amount to 1st respondent. 2. On 21.05.2005, a road accident took place. 1st respondent sustained injury. The two wheeler belonging to one Anthonysamy/2nd respondent, insured with the appellant is involved. 3. It was pleaded by the 1st respondent that then he travelled in the said bike as a pillion - rider and it was driven by one Arulanand, the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving of the bike. The Tribunal found Arulanand was negligent and awarded Rs.1,89,874/- to the 1st respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that actually at the time of accident the bike was driven by 1st respondent himself, since he did not hold a driving licence, posed one Arulanand as rider of the bike. Further, there was 12 days delay in lodging the F.I.R. The report of R.W.1 also falsify the claim of the 1st respondent. 5. Though sufficient opportunity has been given to the respondents, there was no representation. In the circumstances, the appeal has been posted to today for orders. Today also there is no representation for the respondents. In the circumstances, considering the arguments advanced at the bar, the materials on record and the impugned award let us dispose of the appeal today. 6. 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1 before the Tribunal. He deposed that at the time of accident he had travelled in the bike as a pillion-rider, inspite of his request, Arulanand had driven the bike rashly and caused the accident. Ex.P.1 complaint has been lodged by 1st respondent. F.I.R. has been registered against the said Arulanand and charge sheet also has been filed against him. In the Magistrate's Court, he admitted the offence, he was convicted and fined. 7. However, R.W.1 the insurance company's investigator would say that at the time of accident the bike was driven by 1st respondent himself. 8. R.W.1 did not witness the accident. So far as the manner of the accident is concerned practically there is no acceptable evidence from the contesting respondent. 9. Of course, the complaint has been lodged after 12 days of the accident. Merely on account of that we cannot disbelieve P.W.1. Of course, in appropriate circumstances, such delay may be fatal in criminal cases but not in accident cases. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. 9. Of course, the complaint has been lodged after 12 days of the accident. Merely on account of that we cannot disbelieve P.W.1. Of course, in appropriate circumstances, such delay may be fatal in criminal cases but not in accident cases. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. In a road accident case, injured will be very much interested in getting treatment than lodging the complaint with Police. In this process, some delay may occur. In the circumstances, we cannot disbelieve P.W.1 only due to F.I.R. delay. In the circumstances, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Aruland. 10. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. The award of the Tribunal is confirmed. The appellant shall deposit the entire award amount, if not, already deposited, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, 1st respondent is permitted to withdraw the entire amount, less amount, if any, already withdrawn. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2010 is dismissed.