JUDGMENT : K. Natarajan, J. This appeal is preferred by the insurer as against the judgment and award passed by the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in MVC No.1730/2009, dated 27.06.2011. 2. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 3. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained. 4. The petitioner/claimant has filed claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- inter alia, contending that on 30.09.2008, at about 6.30 p.m., when the claimant was alighting from the bus bearing Regn.No.KA-01-F-2799, the driver of the said bus drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her, due to which, she fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to D.G. Hospital and she was given first aid. Thereafter, she has taken treatment at Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Bengaluru, for severe infection in her right leg and spent huge amount towards medical treatment. Therefore, she has claimed compensation on various heads. 5. The respondent No.1-BMTC, though served, remained absent and did not contest the case. Hence, respondent No.1-BMTC was placed ex parte. 6. The respondent No.2-insurer appeared through the counsel and filed statement of objection by denying the averments made in the claim petition as false. The respondent No.2-insurer though admitted issuance of Insurance Policy, but contended that liability, if any, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and also subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules. It has also taken a specific contention that the vehicle was not at all involved in the accident and there is a delay of 4 months 7 days in lodging FIR to the Police. As such, the claimant colluded with the insured, filed a false case to the Police by falsely implicating the BMTC for getting compensation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. 1. As such, the claimant colluded with the insured, filed a false case to the Police by falsely implicating the BMTC for getting compensation. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 7. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues. 1. "Whether the petitioner proves that she has sustained injuries as per wound certificate in a road traffic accident on 30-09-2008 at about 6-30 p.m., near KIMS College bus stop, Athiguppe road, BSK II Stage, Bangalore, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of BMTC bus bearing No.KA.01.F.2799? 2. Whether petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 3. What Order or Award?" 8. To substantiate the claim, the claimant herself examined as PW.1 and examined two witnesses as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked 20 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.20. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company examined its officer as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R.1-Insurance Policy. 9. After considering the material on record, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.1,21,418/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition until realization of the entire amount in the following manner: Pain and agony Rs. 20,000/- Loss of income during laid-up period Rs. 41,418/- Compensation for disability, loss of future earning, loss of happiness and loss of future amenities nil Medical and incidental expenses Rs. 60,000/- Total Rs. 1,21,418/- 10. Being aggrieved by the findings of the Tribunal and the liability being fastened on the respondent No.2-insurer, the present appeal has been filed by raising various grounds. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurer strenuously contended that there is an inordinate delay of 4 months 7 days in lodging the complaint by the claimant. Though the alleged accident is said to have occurred on 30.09.2008 and it was stated that she has taken treatment in the D.G. Hospital, but no case has been registered by the Police. Subsequently, she was admitted in the hospital on 13.10.2009 till 17.10.2009. Even then, there was no complaint filed by her. Later, on 07.02.2010, she has filed a complaint to the Police. The delay has not been properly explained. Subsequently, she was admitted in the hospital on 13.10.2009 till 17.10.2009. Even then, there was no complaint filed by her. Later, on 07.02.2010, she has filed a complaint to the Police. The delay has not been properly explained. Even there was no intimation given by the Doctor to the Police as per Ex.P.17-Extract of MLC and Ex.P.19-True copy of the MLC register extract was created to fix the vehicle in question with the accident. The findings given by the Tribunal for condoning the delay in lodging the complaint is not acceptable. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that the Investigating Officer not examined the vehicle through the Motor Vehicle Inspector. It is also contended that the quantum of award passed by the Trial Court is exorbitant and excessive and hence, prayed for setting aside the same. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant contended that when the claimant went to D.G Hospital, immediately after the accident, she has stated that she has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. The same was mentioned in the MLC Register. The MLC register was summoned by the Court. PW.3-Prasanna Kumar, Medical Record Keeper produced the MLC Register extract Ex.P.19 wherein, it is clearly mentioned that the claimant sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Since, the injury was simple in nature, she might have ignored the same, but later the injuries aggravated. Therefore, she has got admitted in the Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital where she was treated as inpatient and undergone surgery. Thereafter, she was continuously under treatment till December. Though, she has informed the Doctor regarding the accident, the same was not intimated to the Police. She has thought that intimation might have been sent to the Police by the Hospital. But, later, she came to know that the Police have not registered any case. Therefore, she had lodged a complaint to the Police on 07.02.2009. The delay was satisfactorily explained by PW.1. Because the hospital authorities have committed mistake by not sending MLC report to the Police, the claimant should not be made to suffer. The Driver of BMTC Bus has not appeared before the Court and led any evidence to show that there was no accident caused by him. The delay was satisfactorily explained by PW.1. Because the hospital authorities have committed mistake by not sending MLC report to the Police, the claimant should not be made to suffer. The Driver of BMTC Bus has not appeared before the Court and led any evidence to show that there was no accident caused by him. Merely because there was delay in lodging the complaint, the veracity of the complaint cannot be taken away in the instant case especially for granting compensation for the injuries sustained by the complainant in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal evidence on records, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: "(1) Whether the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident in question has occurred on 30.09.2008 due to the rash and negligent driving of the BMTC Bus and due to which the claimant sustained grievous injuries? (2) Whether the award of compensation by the Tribunal is exorbitant and requires to be reduced? (3) What order?" 14. It is not in dispute that there was delay of 4 months 7 days in filing the complaint before the Police on 07.02.2009 alleging that she has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 30.09.2008 and she had given the vehicle number of the BMTC Bus as KA-01-F-2799. She has categorically stated that when she was traveling in the said Bus and alighted at Kims Hospital bus stop, due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, she fell down and sustained injuries. She was taken to the D.G. Hospital. Thereafter, she went home. Later again due to the aggravation of the injuries, she took treatment at Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital by getting admitted as inpatient from 13.10.2008 to 17.10.2008. Thereafter, she was again admitted in the hospital on 01.11.2008 and discharged on 03.11.2008. Thereafter, once again she was admitted on 28.11.2008 till 01.12.2008. She has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment. She was working as First Division Assistant in the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB). She was on leave about three months due to the treatment. Thereafter, she was again admitted in the hospital on 01.11.2008 and discharged on 03.11.2008. Thereafter, once again she was admitted on 28.11.2008 till 01.12.2008. She has spent considerable amount towards medical expenses, conveyance and nourishment. She was working as First Division Assistant in the Karnataka Housing Board (KHB). She was on leave about three months due to the treatment. To corroborate her evidence, she got marked Ex.P.1-copy of the FIR with complaint, Ex.P.2-Spot panchanama, Ex.P.3-Sketch, Ex.P.4-Wound Certificate issued by the Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Ex.P.5-copy of charge sheet, Ex.P.6-31 Medical Bills, Exs.P.7 & P.8 are the prescription and sickness certificates of D.G. Hospital, Ex.P.9-Lab reports, Exs.P.10 to P.12 are the discharge summaries issued by the Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital, for having admitted the claimant thrice in the hospital and Ex.P.13-Salary Certificate, Ex.P.14-Medical Leave Certificate issued by Karnataka Housing Board to show that the claimant was on medical leave from 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008, Ex.P.15-photograph of the petitioner shows the injuries sustained and debridement done, Ex.P.16-certified copy of wound certificate, Ex.P.17-Extract of MLC register, Ex.P.18-Inpatient record of the petitioner showing the injuries sustained and surgery undergone by her due to the road traffic accident, Ex.P.19-MLC register extract marked through PW.3 and Ex.P.20-Case sheet of D.G. Hospital. 15. Perusal of these documents especially, Exs.P.17 and P.19, the MLC register extracts, shows that the injured claimant S.K. Saroja went to the hospital on 30.09.2008. It has been recorded in the MLC register and in the history of the case, as the alleged road traffic accident has occurred on 30.01.2008 at 6.30 p.m., while the claimant was getting down from the bus at Kims Hospital stop. Though, the hospital authorities have noted down the history of the case that there was a superficial aberration having pain along with tenderness in the right leg and swelling, but not intimated the same to the Police. Ex.P.20-case sheet of the D.G. Hospital goes to show that they have prescribed some medicines and referred the injured to Orthopedician for further treatment. Exs.P.19 and P.20 were summoned by the Court, which were produced by PW.3, who is working in the Department of Medical Record of D.G. Hospital. Ex.P.20-case sheet of the D.G. Hospital goes to show that they have prescribed some medicines and referred the injured to Orthopedician for further treatment. Exs.P.19 and P.20 were summoned by the Court, which were produced by PW.3, who is working in the Department of Medical Record of D.G. Hospital. Though the counsel for the respondent tried to impeach the evidence of this witness that Exs.P.19 and P.20 were falsely created for the purpose of the case, as there were some differences in Exs.P.17 and P.18, but the MLC register was summoned and compared by the Tribunal and found both the original MLC Register and extract-Ex.P.17 are correct. Thereafter, the MLC extract was marked as Ex.P.19. When such being the case, the MLC register was produced before the Court and the cross-examination was done by the respondent counsel, but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the evidence of PW.3 and in Exs.P.19 and P.20, the MLC Register extracts and the case sheet of the claimant, which were prepared on the date of the accident on the undisputed time, the PW.3 has categorically stated that the same was prepared on the date of the treatment. The evidence of PW.3 clearly corroborates the evidence of PW.1. Ex.P.7 the medical prescription and the certificates issued by the doctor are on the same date i.e., on 30.09.2008 wherein, it is clearly stated that there were some injuries to the right leg and she was directed to take rest for one week. The claimant being a government employee who sustained injuries, immediately went to the hospital on the date of the accident, took treatment and also obtained certificate for the purpose of applying leave. These documents were not seriously disputed by the respondent. That apart, the entire medical records and discharge summaries of Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital shows that 13.10.2008 she was admitted to Hospital and discharged on 17.10.2008. The history of the case was mentioned as trauma of right foot and later developed cellulites, tenderness of lower limb and skin necrosis. Then again she was admitted on 01.11.2008 till 3.11.2008 in the same hospital. Further, surgery was done. Again she has undergone debridement and skin grafting. This document also corroborates with the evidence of PW.1. The history of the case was mentioned as trauma of right foot and later developed cellulites, tenderness of lower limb and skin necrosis. Then again she was admitted on 01.11.2008 till 3.11.2008 in the same hospital. Further, surgery was done. Again she has undergone debridement and skin grafting. This document also corroborates with the evidence of PW.1. The wound certificate issued by the D.G. Hospital, Rajalakshmi Multi Specialty Hospital and discharge summaries clearly goes to show that on 30.09.2008, PW.1 sustained injuries and she has stated before the doctor that she has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Later, she was continuously under treatment as inpatient and also out-patient in various hospitals and undergone various treatment like skin grafting etc. She also applied for leave and obtained leave from the employer. Ex.P.14-Medical Leave certificate issued by the Karnataka Housing Board goes to show that she was on medical leave from 01.10.2008 to 31.12.2008, which clearly corroborates the evidence of PW.1 and to show that she took first aid treatment at D.G. Hospital and within ten days, she has suffered septicemia. Thereafter, she got admitted to the hospital and was under treatment till the end of December 2008. She has continuously taken treatment as inpatient and as out-patient. The prescription and medical bills go to show that even thereafter, she was under treatment. Further evidence of PW.1 goes to show that after enquiring with the Police, that there was no case registered with the Police. Therefore, she has lodged the complaint and explained the delay in lodging the complaint. Normally, the Police will not entertain the complaint if there is inordinate or long delay in lodging the complaint, but the medical record clearly goes to suggest that she was continuously under treatment and the MLC register extract shows that D.G. Hospital recorded as MLC case in the MLC register, but they failed to refer the same to the Police and due to error or mistake committed by the hospital authorities in not sending the MLC report to the Police, the Police did not register the case immediately. The veracity of the evidence of PW.1 cannot to be doubted. It is also pertinent to note that PW.1 on the same date took some treatment and thinking that the injuries are simple in nature, she remained silent. When the injuries aggravated, she was forced to get admitted to the hospital. The veracity of the evidence of PW.1 cannot to be doubted. It is also pertinent to note that PW.1 on the same date took some treatment and thinking that the injuries are simple in nature, she remained silent. When the injuries aggravated, she was forced to get admitted to the hospital. The photographs would go to suggest that she has sustained injuries on the leg. Apart from that the claimant being a government employee she would get medical reimbursement. Therefore, there is no question of filing a false complaint only to get compensation from the insurance company. Even otherwise she was not aware as to whether at that time, the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and she could have thought that the injuries are simple in nature and left without lodging complaint to the Police as against the driver of the bus. But after spending huge amount and prolonged treatment she might have realized that she has to take action against the driver of the bus and therefore, she could have lodged the complaint. Even the driver of the bus has not disputed the accident before the Tribunal, contested the case and rebutted the evidence of PW.1 to show that there was no accident caused by him. The FIR and charge sheet would go to show that the Police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus. 16. Pw.2-Police Inspector has also given evidence before the Tribunal that on receipt of the complaint and after investigation they filed the charge sheet. On perusal of this document, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 goes to show that the accident has occurred on the said date. The claimant was able to prove that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver and due to which she sustained injuries. The officer of the Insurance Company who was examined as RW.1 though has stated that there was no accident at all and a false complaint has been registered, but in the cross-examination he has admitted that he has not met the driver of the bus and enquired with the BMTC regarding the accident and they have not made any separate investigation to know whether there was accident or not and he also stated that he has no personal knowledge in respect of the accident. He also further stated that they have collected the records from D.G. Hospital in respect of this case, but they have not produced the same before this Court, which clearly goes to show that though they have collected information from D.G. Hospital and came to know that there was a mention in the MLC register which reveals the accident, but supported the same before the Court. There may not be vehicle number, but that by itself is not a ground to reject the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, the evidence of RW.1 is not sufficient to disprove that there was no accident. When the driver of BMTC bus did not appear before the Court and the respondent BMTC not chosen to examine its driver to deny the accident and to disprove the evidence of PW.1, the Court can draw an inference in favour of the claimant that there was an accident on the said date as stated by PW.1 and due to which, she has sustained injuries. 17. The Tribunal while giving a finding in respect of delay, relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and others, (2011) 4 SCC 693 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited vs. Smt. Lakshmamma in MFA No.7493/2007(MV), dated 25.09.2007 and has come to the conclusion that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim of the accident. 18. Therefore, considering all the relevant points, there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the document that the accident has occurred on 30.09.2008 and merely there was a delay of 4 months and 7 days, that itself is not a ground to disbelieve the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and as PW.1 was continuously under treatment in the Hospital, there has been delay in lodging the complaint which was satisfactorily explained by her. Though, it is well settled that the delay in lodging the complaint if not explained properly is fatal to the case, but if the claimant is able to explain the delay satisfactorily, the question of disbelieving the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not arise, in the absence of any evidence from the driver of the BMTC bus. Though, it is well settled that the delay in lodging the complaint if not explained properly is fatal to the case, but if the claimant is able to explain the delay satisfactorily, the question of disbelieving the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not arise, in the absence of any evidence from the driver of the BMTC bus. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus and PW.1 sustained injuries and the delay in lodging the complaint is not fatal to the claimant's case. Therefore, I answer point No.1 in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-Insurer Company. 19. The next question that arises for the consideration is as regards the quantum of compensation. Though the appellant contended that it is exorbitant, as the claimant was a government employee and on perusal of the medical record would show that there is huge medical expenditure incurred by PW.1, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses. She was under treatment for three months and depending upon her salary, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.41,418/- towards loss of income during laid-up period. There is no award of compensation by the Tribunal against future loss of earning, as PW.1 is the government employee and would get higher salary than the salary which was received by her at the time of the accident. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and agony. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is only a just compensation and cannot be considered as excessive and exorbitant, which calls for interference by this Court. Hence, I answer point No.2 in favour of the claimant and against the appellant-Insurer. 20. For the reasons stated above, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.