JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) No-2-cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 548/2005 dated 31.08.2012 awarding compensation in favour of the claimant amounting to Rs. 1,25,300/-(Rupees one lakh twenty-five thousand and three hundred) only. 2. The insurer of the alleged offending vehicle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. has challenged the order by stating that no case was registered against the driver of the vehicle which made an accident causing injury to the claimant/respondent No. 1 in this case. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 26.03.2004 at about 2:30 P.M. while the respondent No. 1/claimant was going from Geetanagar towards Noonmati Bazar on foot, he met with an accident at Noonmati when a Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Victor Motor Cycle) coming in a rash and negligent manner hit the respondent No. 1/claimant from behind. As a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person. After the accident, he was immediately taken to International Hospital, Guwahati and thereafter he was shifted and admitted to Down Town Hospital, Guwahati for his treatment. Subsequently, he had undergone treatment at Popular Nursing Home, Patna. He incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakhs) only for his treatment. At the relevant time of accident the alleged offending vehicle was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 4. The appellant as Opposite Party No. 2 in MAC Case No. 548/2005 has submitted written statement wherein, it is stated that the accident occurred on 26.03.2004 and G.D. Entry was recorded on 04.08.2005 after more than one year from the date of accident and no explanation has been made for causing delay in lodging the FIR and as such learned Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition. 5. After going through the record of MAC Case No. 548/2005, it reveals that the claimant examined two witnesses including himself and on the other hand insurer of the offending vehicle, also adduced one witness in support of their case. After completion of trial the learned Additional District Judge -cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup delivered the judgment as aforesaid. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order this appeal has been preferred. 6. After completion of trial the learned Additional District Judge -cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup delivered the judgment as aforesaid. Being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order this appeal has been preferred. 6. It was urged by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant/respondent No. 1 lodged an FIR before Noonmati PS after about one and a half years of the alleged accident and thereafter no investigation was carried out by the concerned Police Station to ascertain the fact that the vehicle No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) was really involved in the alleged accident and thereby causing injuries to the respondent No. 1/claimant. 7. It is further argued that the learned Tribunal ignored the fact that in the Noonmati Police G.D. Entry No. 56 dated 04.08.2005 (Exhibit-A) there is no mention of the vehicle involved in the accident and there was no material before the Tribunal to hold that the vehicle No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) was involved in the accident causing injuries to the claimant/respondent No. 1. Moreover, no police case was registered against the rider of the Motor Cycle and as such in absence of any positive evidence of involvement of aforesaid vehicle, the claim case ought to have been dismissed and the appeal be allowed. 8. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a case law-New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hananiah Rabha & 7 Ors., reported in 2018(5) GLR 337. 9. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant has argued that the injured could not lodge FIR within time as he was under treatment being suffered fracture on his both arms and the delay whatever was caused in lodging FIR was because of the reason of his treatment in Down Town Hospital, Guwahati and Popular Nursing Home, Patna and it was not deliberate. It is also argued that the reason of delay has been disclosed in FIR/G.D. Entry itself. 10. Learned counsel has relied on a case law on the point of delay in lodging FIR in MAC Case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226 (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors.). 11. I have heard the argument and perused the records and the documents available therein. 10. Learned counsel has relied on a case law on the point of delay in lodging FIR in MAC Case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1226 (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors.). 11. I have heard the argument and perused the records and the documents available therein. It is not disputed proposition of law that delay in lodging FIR in MAC cases is usually not vital but an extra ordinary delay in lodging FIR must be explained to rule out any possibility of false implication or manipulation of a vehicle allegedly involved during accident. The law to this effect has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled (Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and Ors.) as referred by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant. This case is also on similar facts where FIR was lodged with a delay of substantial period as in the present case. The observation of the Court is as under- “The purpose of lodging the FIR in such type of cases is primarily to intimate the police to initiate investigation of criminal offences. Lodging of FIR certainly proves factum of accident so that the victim is able to lodge a case for compensation but delay in doing so cannot be the main ground for rejecting the claim petition. In other words, although lodging of FIR is vital in deciding motor accident claim cases, delay in lodging the same should not be treated as fatal for such proceedings, if claimant has been able to demonstrate satisfactory and cogent reasons for it. There could be variety of reasons in genuine cases for delayed lodgment of FIR. Unless kith and kin of the victim are able to regain a certain level of tranquility of mind and are composed to lodge it, even if, there is delay, the same deserves to be condoned. In such circumstances, the authenticity of the FIR assumes much more significance than delay in lodging thereof supported by cogent reasons.” 12. In view of the above said case, it is necessary that there must be cogent reason or explanation to explain the delay in lodging FIR which stopped the injured or family members to lodge FIR in time. However, without any such explanation the delay assumed significant to determine compensation. 13. In view of the above said case, it is necessary that there must be cogent reason or explanation to explain the delay in lodging FIR which stopped the injured or family members to lodge FIR in time. However, without any such explanation the delay assumed significant to determine compensation. 13. In the present case, the alleged accident took place on 26.03.2004 at about 2:00 P.M. whereas the alleged FIR was lodged on 04.08.2005 i.e. after one year and five months. Since there was a delay of more than one year in lodging the FIR as such injured is bound to tender an explanation to his delay. The injured has tendered an explanation that as he was busy in his treatment in Assam and outside Assam he was not in a position to lodge the FIR in time. After going through the record of MAC Case No. 548/2005 it reveals that the extract copy of Noonmati PS Traffic Branch G.D. Entry No. 56 was recorded on 04.08.2005 (vide Exhibit A) wherein it is written that the injured Bhuban Mahajan informed the traffic branch of Noonmati P.S. that on 26.03.2004 at about 2:30 P.M. while he was going towards petrol pump from Noonmati Bazar on foot, one Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 (TVS Motor Cycle) coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down from behind. As a result he sustained grievous injuries on his left hand. He was taken to Down Town Hospital for treatment and as he was busy in his treatment there was delay in lodging the information about the accident. 14. On the basis of the information of the injured the aforesaid Noonmati PS Traffic Branch G.D. Entry No. 56 dated 04.08.2005 was recorded. But the copy of the FIR is not available in the record nor the said FIR was exhibited in the trial Court. 15. The respondent/claimant was examined in MAC Case No. 548/2005 as PW 1 who has reiterated the same thing whatever he has stated in the claim petition that he met with an accident on 26.03.2004. While he was coming towards Noonmati Bazar, one TVS Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person including the fracture on his left hand. He was treated at Down Town Hospital, Guwahati and Popular Nursing Home, Patna. 16. While he was coming towards Noonmati Bazar, one TVS Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked him down as a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person including the fracture on his left hand. He was treated at Down Town Hospital, Guwahati and Popular Nursing Home, Patna. 16. In his cross examination, PW 1 has replied that he informed the police about the accident after about sixteen months from the date of accident. A certified copy of the FIR has not been produced in this case. He has not summoned the police to prove the Exhibit 1 the Accident Information Report. He did not know the person who issued the Exhibit 1. The Traffic Branch of police department issued Exhibit 1. He did not remember the person who told him the number of the vehicle. 17. P.W. 2 is Sri Gaurhari Bhakta, who claimed to be an eye witness to the accident. According to him, on 26.03.2004 at about 2:30 P.M. while he was standing at the Pan Shop he saw a TVS Victor which was driven in a rash and negligent manner towards Noonmati Bazar hit a pedestrian from behind. As a result, he fell down on the road and became unconscious for a while. In the meantime, several other persons gathered at the place of occurrence and he along with the help of others boarded the injured to an auto rickshaw for taking him to hospital. In his cross-examination PW 2 has replied that he had come to the Court for adducing evidence at the instance of the claimant. 18. Regarding delay of lodging the FIR and recording of GD Entry after more than one year, the respondent No. 1/claimant has given an explanation that as he was busy in his treatment at Assam and outside Assam there was delay in lodging the FIR. However, it is to be seen as to whether the explanation is satisfied to explain the delay or not. As per the discharge certificate of Down Town Hospital it reveals that vide Exhibit 2 the injured Bhuban Mahajan was admitted to Down Town Hospital on 26.03.2004, i.e. on the date of accident and discharged on 02.04.2004 which shows that the respondent No. 1 had been hospitalized for seven days at Down Town Hospital. As per the discharge certificate of Down Town Hospital it reveals that vide Exhibit 2 the injured Bhuban Mahajan was admitted to Down Town Hospital on 26.03.2004, i.e. on the date of accident and discharged on 02.04.2004 which shows that the respondent No. 1 had been hospitalized for seven days at Down Town Hospital. On examination Doctor found compound comminuted fracture both bones (L) forearm and comminuted fracture (L) humerus. 19. Exhibit 3 is the discharge certificate of Popular Nursing Home, Patna from which it reveals that the respondent No. 1/claimant was admitted to Popular Nursing Home on 12.08.2004 and discharged on 18.08.2004. Doctor opined a case of Non-union, Lt ulna (treated earlier elsewhere with application of External fixator for ulna & plating for ipsilateral Lt radius & humerus with plating). From the medical report of Down Town Hospital as well as Popular Nursing Home, Patna it reveals that left forearm of the respondent No. 1 was fractured, operation was done by inserting plate which were subsequently removed. 20. It also reveals that after discharge from Popular Nursing Home, the injured has returned back to his house and medical documents are also available in the record for his subsequent treatment in Down Town Hospital, Guwahati. More and above due to the alleged injuries fracture of left forearm, the respondent No. 1 was hospitalized for seven days in Down Town Hospital, Guwahati and seven days in Popular Nursing Home Patna. As left hand of the respondent No. 1/claimant has been fractured it is quite obvious that he had to confine in bed for another 2-3 months but he was in a position to move from one place to another as he did not sustain any injury on his leg. 21. There is no explanation from the side of the claimant why he or his family members failed to visit the police station immediately after the accident or after his arrival from Popular Nursing Home, Patna. No doubt the claimant kept on getting treatment even thereafter as well but it is nowhere explained as to why his family members did not lodge any case on his behalf. It is not the case of the injured that he remained confining to bed and lodged the FIR after getting over his entire treatment as his treatment was still going on when he lodged the FIR even after the period of more than one year. It is not the case of the injured that he remained confining to bed and lodged the FIR after getting over his entire treatment as his treatment was still going on when he lodged the FIR even after the period of more than one year. It is also not the case of the respondent/claimant that his family members have no knowledge about the accident and there was no impediment to the family members to lodge the information about the accident immediately which was not done by them and it is fatal to his case in explaining the delay. 22. In fact, there are lots of unexplained facts which indicate that the delay in lodging the FIR was deliberate and even involvement of the offending vehicle is also doubtful. 23. As per the documents proved by the injured there is no document on record to prove that the injured was aware about the involvement of the offending vehicle prior to filing of FIR on 04.08.2005. It is beyond explanation as to how he came to know about the involvement of the offending vehicle suddenly, after more than one year of the accident. He has not tendered an explanation during his entire testimony as to how he came to know about it and it creates doubt about the involvement of the offending vehicle. 24. In his cross-examination P.W.1, i.e. the claimant has replied that he did not remember the person who told him the number of the vehicle but that person took him to the hospital after the accident. P.W. 2, who claims to be the eye-witness to the accident, has nowhere stated that he had disclosed the number of the offending vehicle to the injured claimant. P.W. 2 is not the person who accompanied the injured claimant to the hospital. P.W.2 clearly stated in his deposition that he along with the help of others boarded the injured in an auto rickshaw for taking him to the hospital. A person from the gathering was accompanied him in the auto rickshaw. 25. To prove the issue in question regarding involvement of the vehicle, one witness was examined i.e. Kanteswar Gogoi, O.C. Noonmati P.S. who deposed in his evidence that as per ejahar received on 04.08.2005 Noonmati P.S. Traffic G.D. Entry No. 56 was recorded. A person from the gathering was accompanied him in the auto rickshaw. 25. To prove the issue in question regarding involvement of the vehicle, one witness was examined i.e. Kanteswar Gogoi, O.C. Noonmati P.S. who deposed in his evidence that as per ejahar received on 04.08.2005 Noonmati P.S. Traffic G.D. Entry No. 56 was recorded. On receipt of the FIR from Bhuban Mahajan, as per the said G.D. Entry the date of occurrence was 26.03.2004 and the FIR was lodged on 04.08.2005. The number of vehicle was though disclosed in the G.D. Entry No. 56 dated 04.08.2005 but he could not say whether the said vehicle was seized or not. On the basis of the said G.D. Entry no any case was registered and no investigation was carried out. Subsequently, in his cross examination D.W. 1 has replied that on the basis of the recording of G.D. Entry he could not say whether any case was registered or not. But no vehicle was seized as per G.D. Entry. 26. From the evidence of D.W. 1 it is crystal clear that though he recorded the G.D. Entry No. 56 dated 04.08.2005 on the basis of the ejahar of Bhuban Mahajan but no case was registered and no investigation was carried out. It also appears that no investigation was done in connection with the fact that the vehicle involved in the said accident causing injuries to the victim Bhuban Mahajan. 27. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the claimant/respondent No. 1 has not come with clean hands. The explanation given by the claimant regarding delay in lodging the FIR is not satisfactory and acceptable one. As it appears that he was not hospitalized for such a long period of more than one year for which he did not get the opportunity to inform the matter of accident in the Police Station in time. It is also not properly explained why his family members though aware failed to inform about the accident in the Police Station. No police case was registered against the rider of the Motor Cycle as such it cannot be said that the Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 was involved in the accident causing injury to the claimant/respondent No. 1 on 26.03.2004. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed. No police case was registered against the rider of the Motor Cycle as such it cannot be said that the Motor Cycle bearing No. AS-01-Q-1253 was involved in the accident causing injury to the claimant/respondent No. 1 on 26.03.2004. 28. In the result, the appeal is allowed. As it is not proved that the vehicle No. AS-01-Q-1253 was involved in the alleged accident, as such the insurer of the vehicle i.e. the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation as awarded by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) No-2-cum-Member, MACT, Kamrup. The judgment and order dated 31.08.2012 is hereby set aside. 29. Send back the LCR. 30. Statutory amount in deposit be returned accordingly.