JUDGMENT S Hukato Swu, J. - This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 30-10-2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Morigaon in MAC Case No. 39 of 2011, dismissing the petition of the claimant for failing to substantially prove the claim petition. 2. The facts of the matter is that on 13-12-2020 while Shri Ganesh Das was going towards his residence at Pachatia Gita riding his bicycle, the offending vehicle bearing registration No. AS-21-A2662 coming from the opposite direction knocked him from the front side and as a result, the claimant sustained multiple injuries on his person. He was admitted to Morigaon Civil Hospital, where he took treatment from 13-12-2010 to 07-01-2011. He was supposed to be earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m and his age was shown as 36 years. 3. To substantiate his claim, the claimant exhibited Morigaon G.D. Entry No. 546 dated 19-02-2011. The vehicle was insured with the New India Assurance Company Limited, Nagaon Branch, Nagaon under Policy No. 53070131090100202197 which was valid up to 18-02-2011. He examined two witnesses to support his claim, the claimant himself being PW-1 and PW-2 Sri Sibu Ray. Exhibit-1 is the Accident Information Report of Morigaon Police Station. 4. At the stage of trial, apparently, the claimant was not successful in proving the documents. Traffic-in-Charge Branch of Morigaon Police Station failed to mention the cause of the delay in the G.D. Entry. Also, he could not mention the police station case number and further he could not mention the distance from the place of occurrence to the police station. The accident was said to have occurred on 13-12- 2010. However, G.D. Entry was made only on 19-02-2011. There is two months delay in registering the G.D. Entry which remains unexplained. 5. He is said to have taken treatment from 10-12-2010 to 07-01-2011 which clearly shows that he was not alert to take steps to file report even after a month of his discharge from the hospital. It has also been said that the medical reports which are Exhibits-3, Exhibit- 4 (1) to Exhibit-4 (6) and Exhibit 5 (1) to Exhibit 5 (7) which contains cash memos and x-ray report of his injury claiming to be the proof of the fracture on his limb. All these documents were not proved by the claimant by calling the doctor who issued the certificate and x-ray. All these documents were not proved by the claimant by calling the doctor who issued the certificate and x-ray. For the above infirmities in the claim petition and in his pleading and on leading of the evidences, the learned Tribunal found that the evidences brought were not trustworthy and came to the conclusion that no case is made out by the claimant and dismissed the claim petition. 6. Appearing for the appellant, Mr. D C C Phukan argued that there is G.D. Entry and the Form 54 which is cognizable and also the necessary medical report to prove that the claimant had undergone treatment. Learned counsel has pleaded that when there is discharge certificate clearly showing that the victim had undergone treatment and discharged along with all the relevant medical documents, it is proof enough, the injury of the accident cannot be disputed. Exhibit-3 is the discharge certificate. Exhibit -1 is the accident information report under Form 54. He has stated that all these documents are proof that there was accident and due to which, the victim was injured and he had undergone treatment as mentioned in the claim petition. wxyz He has pleaded that the appeal may be allowed. zyxw 7. Appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. A. Dhar and appearing for the respondent No.2, Mr. A. Dutta have vehemently objected to taking cognizance of GD Entry 546 dated 19-02-2011 and also Form 54 which has been exhibited. The learned Tribunal has correctly arrived at the decision that it is not a genuine claim petition considering that there were innumerical errors in the claim petition. The interested party filing G.D. Entry after a lapse of two months can cause a lot of suspicion as is clearly seen in this case. The claimant who is the interested party must be prompt enough to take steps however, he has failed to discharge his duty in filing G.D. Entry even after the claimant was discharged from hospital. As per the records, the claimant was discharged on 07-01-2011 and did not file the complaint or report until 19-02-2011 which leaves a lot of room for doubt. Hence, it can never be considered as an excusable delay. No witnesses were examined to this aspect. As per the records, the claimant was discharged on 07-01-2011 and did not file the complaint or report until 19-02-2011 which leaves a lot of room for doubt. Hence, it can never be considered as an excusable delay. No witnesses were examined to this aspect. With respect to medical evidence, learned counsel has pleaded that without proving the accident and only relying on the OPD ticket cannot be the basis of claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. The doctor who treated him and the doctor who issued the discharge certificate as exhibited in the claim petition were not examined at all. The claimant has averred that he was treated in Morigaon Civil Hospital. However, the certification is from a private doctor which is illogical and prima facie evidence of fabrication. 8. The above being the facts of the case, it is clear that the claimant has not discharged his duty to prove his case. Hence, the learned Tribunal has appropriately come to the just conclusion and as such, the appeal petition should be dismissed. There is no ground to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal. 9. On hearing the parties and also on marshalling the evidences placed on record, it is found that the argument forwarded by the learned counsel for the respondents has substance. Even in a genuine case, there is a certain degree of duty and alertness that is called upon by the claimant to substantiate his claim for compensation. In the instant case, it is observed that the claimant has failed to discharge any of the duty cast upon him to prove his case. Neither has he lodged the complaint at an early point of time to dispel the doubt of the inquiry to exhibit that the case is not a fabricated one. Failing to do so, the mistake would have been atoned, had he brought the witness to explain the reason for delay in filing the G.D. Entry and also to prove the genuineness of the G.D. Entry. This has not been done. 10. At the next stage, the treatment that was undergone is also shrouded in doubt as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. If OPD is supposed to be for Out Door Patients as argued by the claimants counsel, it was not necessary to produce the discharge certificate which is exhibited as Exhibit-3. This has not been done. 10. At the next stage, the treatment that was undergone is also shrouded in doubt as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents. If OPD is supposed to be for Out Door Patients as argued by the claimants counsel, it was not necessary to produce the discharge certificate which is exhibited as Exhibit-3. Meaning thereby the certificate itself is wrong. There is no need to discharge an outdoor patient which is illogical. Further to enhance the doubt the discharge certificate has not been issued from the Morigaon Civil Hospital and one cannot obtain a discharge certificate from a private doctor while the treatment was undergone in a Government hospital, this is illogical. 11. For all the above reasons, the claimant could not satisfactorily explain the infirmities in the claim petition, I am of the view that the appellant/claimant has not made out a case. it is the bounden duty of the Tribunal to assess what is brought before it is as decided by the Apex court in the case of Raj Kumar -vs- Ajay Kumar, reported in, (2011) 1 SCC 343 , wherein, it has been held that the Tribunal should not be a silent spectator when medical evidence is tendered in regard to the injuries and their effect, in particular the extent of permanent disability. Sections 168 and 169 of the Act make it evident that the Tribunal does not function as a neutral umpire as in a civil suit, but as an active explorer and seeker of truth who is required to ''hold an enquiry into the claim'' for determining the ''just compensation''. 12. We are fully aware that the claim petitions must not be subject to technicalities of procedures to deny the genuine claimants. However, the primary duties of the claimant must be fulfilled for considering compensation. The volume of false claims which is exhausting the public exchequer must be kept in mind, there must be consciousness to show that the claimant has come with clean hands. There is doubt created by the claimant himself at every stage. All cautions have been thrown to the wind. The claimant has failed to fulfill the minimum standards of proof in a claim petition. 13. There is doubt created by the claimant himself at every stage. All cautions have been thrown to the wind. The claimant has failed to fulfill the minimum standards of proof in a claim petition. 13. As directed in the above referred ruling of the Apex Court, the Tribunal is duty bound to scrutinize the documents which determine the compensation in a motor accident claims tribunal. Learned Tribunal has exercised the authorized power of scrutiny and rightly come to the conclusion that the claimant has not been able to establish a valid case for consideration to award compensation. 14. For reasons stated above, this Court finds no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 15. Appeal is dismissed.