JUDGMENT : G. Narendar, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Counsel for the insurer. 2. This is a peculiar case where the Tribunal after having accepted the nexus between the injuries caused in the accident and the death has proceeded to hold that the offending vehicle has been implicated on account of collusion between the claimants and the owner and such a presumption is drawn on account of the eye-witnesses turning hostile before the Criminal Court in the prosecution lodged by the State and which led to the acquittal of the accused, i.e., the rider of the offending motorcycle and further on the ground that the claimants have not examined the eye-witness namely Jakareddy and also on the ground that there has been an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and proceeded to hold that the claimants have not proved issue No. 1 and on account of the same it was pleased to dismiss the claim petition after placing reliance on the rulings of this Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Mysore v. B.C. Kumar and Another 2010(1) Kar LJ 210, ILR 2009 Kar. 2921 and Veerappa and Another v. Siddappa and Another, ILR 2009 Kar. 3562, where this Court was examining a case of false and fraudulent claims. 3. The records have been summoned. We have carefully looked into the records, more particularly into Ex. P. 4, the Motor Vehicle Accident Report which details the vehicles involved and the damages to the respective vehicles which is extracted as hereunder: "5. Mechanical condition of the vehicle: KA-28 E 6868 1. Head light damaged; 2. Front sight side indicator damaged; 3. Front sight side bumper damaged; 4. Front right side foot rest damaged. KA-29-J 9141 1. Head light damaged; 2. Front left side indicator damaged; 3. Front left side bumper damaged. Remaining parts of the motor vehicles in order." 4. In Column No. 6 of the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, it is recorded both the vehicles are in the custody of Bilagi police station. Front right side foot rest damaged. KA-29-J 9141 1. Head light damaged; 2. Front left side indicator damaged; 3. Front left side bumper damaged. Remaining parts of the motor vehicles in order." 4. In Column No. 6 of the Motor Vehicles Accident Report, it is recorded both the vehicles are in the custody of Bilagi police station. We have further closely scrutinised the Wound Certificate issued by the Medical Officer, Taluka Hospital, Bilagi, and therein it is recorded that the injuries have occurred on account of the road traffic accident at 7 p.m., and the nature of the injuries are as follows: "KARNATAKA MEDICAL DEPARTMENT WOUND CERTIFICATE Wounds or injuries found on the person of a.........calling himself Goudappa Venkappa Isareddy aged 45 years, gender male on inhabitant Badagi who was sent with self from........................ps and accompanied by........... reported to certified............. self to have been caused on 20-2-2009 to be due to RTA at 7.00 p.m. identification marks scar on left side of forehead. The injured person was first seen by the undersigned at 8.40 p.m. on the 10-2-2009.............and the examination was done at.......on the........when following injuries were found: Injury: (1) left frontal contusion; (2) head injury present on post-lateral side on right side; (3) injury on left foot and knee; (4) patient is in altered sensorium. X- ray report: left frontoparietal acute subdural hematoma diffuse traumatic subarachnoid haemorrhage diffuse axonal injury I am of the opinion that it is grievous in nature caused due to hard and blunt objects within about 6 to 12 hours. Station ................ Name ................. Date............................. Rank................... Sd/- S.R. Goudanavar Medical Officer, Taluka Hospital, Bilagi, Dist: Bagalkot." 5. We have also examined the FIR and the charge-sheet. Admittedly, the FIR has been registered after 7 days and the accused 6-rider of the offending vehicle has been charge-sheeted. The discharge summary issued by the private hospital would disclose that the patient was on artificial ventilation for a period of 14 days and he has also undergone tracheostomy which would prima facie imply involuntary feeding. It is also recorded that he was not opening his eye and not vocalising, pupils were not reactive to light and had EOMS frozen. It is also recorded that on 26-2-2009, tracheostomy was performed on the patient. 6. In the light of the nature of injuries suffered and Ex. It is also recorded that he was not opening his eye and not vocalising, pupils were not reactive to light and had EOMS frozen. It is also recorded that on 26-2-2009, tracheostomy was performed on the patient. 6. In the light of the nature of injuries suffered and Ex. P. 4, the Motor Vehicle Accidents Report, in our considered opinion, probabilises the version of the claimants. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has not appreciated Ex. P. 4, the wound certificate in its proper perspective. It has also not examined the medical records which came into existence at the earliest point of time, namely; Ex. P. 5 and Ex. P. 8. The Wound Certificate clearly demonstrates the severity of the injury suffered, more particularly, to the brain, the discharge summary and the details of treatment which can be co-related to the wounds described in the wound certificate. Mere delay in lodging the complaint in the said circumstances, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to deny the version of the claimants. 7. The further contention that Medico-Legal Case register is also not produced, cannot be put against the claimants. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants-claimants that the parents of the deceased had predeceased him and that he was living along with his wife and two minor children and that the wife was beside him in the hospital cannot be termed as an abnormal action. It is apparent that on account of the grievous nature of the injuries and his medical condition, in all probability did not permit his wife and children leave his bedside to approach the police station at the earliest. These are circumstances where a beneficent and benevolent approach requires to be adopted by the Courts. There is no hard and fast rule applicable to every case. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 17-2-2016 rendered in M/V.C. No. 116/2010 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT No. VI, Jamkhandi, is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove. 9. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the same within six months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties to appear before the Court on 4-12-2020.