JUDGMENT Alka Sarin, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri dated 24.02.2012, partly allowing the claim petition filed by Jitender Kumar, respondent No.1 herein. 2. The brief facts as set out in the claim petition were that on 15.01.2011, Jitender Kumar along with one Gambhir Singh had gone to Radaur in car bearing registration No.HR02- U-5253. After completing their work, they were returning to village Nachron in the same car. When they reached near Yamuna Bridge, Radaur, one Ashok Kumar was standing there to go to village. Respondent-Jitender Kumar gave him lift in his car. It was further stated that when they reached near 'T' point of Village Rattangarh, Dheer Singh, respondent No.2, while driving his tractor-trolley in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed came from the opposite direction and hit the car from driver side due to which the car struck against a eucalyptus tree. It was further stated that due to the impact of the accident, all the occupants of the car suffered multiple grievous injuries on their persons. Respondent No.1 is stated to have suffered fractures in the right arm and right leg, besides other injuries. He was admitted to Gaba Hospital where he was operated upon and implants had to be inserted rendering him permanently disabled due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. 3. Ruqa, Ex.R2, was sent to police and on the basis thereof FIR No.13 dated 25.01.2011, under sections 279, 337, 338, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered at Police Station Jathlana. Respondent Jitender Kumar claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company filed its written statement, inter alia, raising the plea that tractor-trolley bearing registration No.HR02-X-1494 was not involved in the accident and that the driver of the tractor-trolley was driving without a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,92,156/- as compensation to Jitender Kumar on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,92,156/- as compensation to Jitender Kumar on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book of the case. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that no occurrence had taken place in the manner alleged. This argument is wholly without any merit, inasmuch as, substantial and cogent evidence was led by the claim-petitioner/respondent to prove the factum of the accident. Jai Bhagwan, Criminal Ahlmad in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri appeared as PW-1 and produced the summoned record pertaining to FIR No.13 dated 25.01.2011. The record clearly revealed that Dheer Singh, driver of the offending tractor-trolley, respondent No.2 herein, was facing trial for causing injuries to Jitender Kumar and also for causing damage to the car bearing registration No.HR02-U-5253. Though Dheer Singh filed written statement before the Tribunal but did not step into the witness box to deny the factum of accident and the manner in which the accident took place. Besides making the bald argument, the learned counsel for the appellant was unable to substantiate the same from the evidence on the record. I, therefore, find no merit in the argument that the accident in question had not taken place. 7. The next argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant was that there was a delay in lodging of the FIR. The accident took place on 15.01.2011, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 25.01.2011. It was urged that the delay in lodging the FIR shows that the tractor-trolley was falsely implicated in the case. Yet another argument raised was that PW-3 Dr. Vandana, Medical Officer of Gaba Hospital, Jagadhri has testified in her statement that the said injuries could have been caused only by falling on a hard surface and, lastly, it was argued that the Ruqa, Ex.R2, had been manipulated. 8. All the aforesaid three arguments raised by the appellant can be dealt together. Respondent Jitender Kumar was declared unfit to make a statement on 15.01.2011 and on subsequent dates till 24.01.2011. It was only on 25.01.2011 that he was declared fit. Ruqa, Ex.R2 was prepared and sent on 15.01.2011. The argument regarding delay in lodging FIR is liable to be rejected on the ground that the delay has been sufficiently explained. Respondent Jitender Kumar was declared unfit to make a statement on 15.01.2011 and on subsequent dates till 24.01.2011. It was only on 25.01.2011 that he was declared fit. Ruqa, Ex.R2 was prepared and sent on 15.01.2011. The argument regarding delay in lodging FIR is liable to be rejected on the ground that the delay has been sufficiently explained. The ruqa, Ex.R2 was prepared on 15.01.2011 itself, that is the day of the accident. Thereafter, the FIR was lodged on 25.01.2011 i.e., the day on which Jitender Kumar was declared fit to make a statement. Therefore, I find that delay has sufficiently been explained. 9. The second argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that Dr. Vandana, Medical Officer, of Gaba Hospital, while appearing as PW-3, had stated in her crossexamination that the nature and type of injuries are such that the same could be caused by falling on a hard surface is neither here nor there. A complete and comprehensive reading of the statement and cross-examination of PW-3 Dr. Vandana, Medical Officer, of Gaba Hospital clearly reveals that the respondent was operated twice, firstly, on 16.01.2011 and, secondly, on 18.01.2011. Further, the injuries have also been proved by her in her testimony. The appellant cannot gain advantage by merely picking up a single sentence from the statement. In any case, this is a totally innocuous submission and, hence, nothing turns on the same. 10. The last argument raised by the appellant that ruqa had been manipulated is also liable to be rejected, inasmuch as, this is an argument which was neither raised before the Tribunal nor is it made out from the record. In fact, Ruqa, Ex.R2 was duly proved. 11. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed.