JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N.C. Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. A.I. Kathar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 1. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2. 2. The claimant as appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the order of dismissal passed by the member, MACT, Shankardevnagar, Hojai, dated 17/05/2014 in MAC case no 468(N) 2012. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 12/01/2012 at about 4 PM while the claimant was proceeding towards Tarabasa under Howraghat police station from Loringthepi by riding his motorcycle bearing no AS09/7725 through National Highway, at that time one vehicle (Scorpio Hawk) bearing no AS09B/1079 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the claimant from his behind as a result he fell from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries on his person. Due to the alleged accident, his right leg had been fractured. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon and then he was referred to GNRC, Guwahati. He was admitted to GNRC, Guwahati on the date of incident wherein he was treated as an indoor patient. Subsequently, the claimant also had undergone treatment at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital and medical centre at Patna. As per the claim petition the claimant had incurred expenditure of Rs.10,000,00/-(Rs. Ten Lakhs) for his treatment. At the relevant time of accident, the alleged offending vehicle was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company. 4. It is pertinent to say here that on the first occasion none of the respondent including the insurance company did not turn up before the Tribunal as such the case was proceeded ex-parte against them. After hearing the claimant side, ex-parte judgment was delivered on 19/08/2013 awarding compensation of Rs.5,53,949/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Three Thousand Nine Hundred Forty Nine only) in favour of the claimant/appellant. Subsequently insurance company filed a petition before the Tribunal under order 9 Rule 13 of CPC praying to vacate the ex-parte order and allow them to contest the case. Accordingly, prayer of the insurance company was allowed by vacating the ex-parte order. The insurance company had submitted their written statement before the Tribunal and thereafter, P.W-1 was cross examined. Subsequently insurance company filed a petition before the Tribunal under order 9 Rule 13 of CPC praying to vacate the ex-parte order and allow them to contest the case. Accordingly, prayer of the insurance company was allowed by vacating the ex-parte order. The insurance company had submitted their written statement before the Tribunal and thereafter, P.W-1 was cross examined. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal had dismissed the appeals on the ground that there was delay of more than one month in lodging the FIR and the claimant had failed to produce any document for his treatment at B.P Hospital Nagaon wherein he was initially treated after the accident. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that the claimant did not produce any witness who had lifted him from the place of accident to the hospital and also failed to produce any of the witnesses who had seen the accident. Thus, the claim of the claimant was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of genuineness of the accident which occurred on 12/01/2012. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial court has committed grave error in not considering the accident information report and discharge report of the hospitals which were exhibited during trial. 6. Learned counsel for the claimant has also contended that the tribunal appears to have been hyper technical in looking for a document of B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon where the claimant was initially treated. Noticing the serious condition of the claimant he was immediately referred to higher authority for better treatment and at that critical moment saving the life of the claimant was much more important for his family members than to procure any document from the said B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant also submitted that the tribunal has completely lost sight of the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is a beneficial legislation and took a hyper technical approach in deciding the case. Hence, the Judgment and Order passed by the Member, MACT, Hojai needs to be interfered. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the appellant also prayed to remand the case to the Trial Court so as to enable the appellant/claimant to produce the necessary documents for his treatment at B.P. Civil hospital, Nagaon. Hence, the Judgment and Order passed by the Member, MACT, Hojai needs to be interfered. Alternatively, the learned counsel for the appellant also prayed to remand the case to the Trial Court so as to enable the appellant/claimant to produce the necessary documents for his treatment at B.P. Civil hospital, Nagaon. 8. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent/insurance company has submitted that he has no objection if the case is remanded back to the trial court for necessary adjudication. 9. I have considered the submissions for the learned counsel of the parties and also perused the MAC case no 468 (N) 2012 and the documents available thereon. 10. The injured was examined in the case as PW1. He deposed in his evidence that on 12/01/2012 while he was travelling from Lorengthepi towards Tarabasa in his motor cycle AS09/7725, he met with an accident when a Scorpio vehicle bearing no AS09B/1079 coming in a rash and negligent manner knocked down his vehicle from backside as a result he fell down and sustained grievous injuries on his person. He took treatment in different hospitals at Guwahati and Patna. 11. According to the claimant, immediately after the accident he was taken to B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon and subsequently, he was shifted to GNRC, Guwahati, wherein he was treated as an indoor patient and thereafter due to paucity of funds he was compelled to shift from GNRC to GMCH. It is alleged that the claimant has failed to produce any document for his initial treatment at B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon but there is no cross examination on the point nor even a suggestion was given to the PW-1 during cross examination that he was not treated at B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon. Though the claimant has failed to produce any document regarding his treatment at B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon but it appears from the evidence of PW1 that though he was taken to B.P. Civil Hospital, Nagaon but as his condition was critical, he was immediately shifted to GNRC, Guwahati. One Xerox copy of discharge certificate is available in the record which shows that the claimant/appellant was admitted to GNRC hospital on 12/01/2012 i.e. on the date of accident. One Xerox copy of discharge certificate is available in the record which shows that the claimant/appellant was admitted to GNRC hospital on 12/01/2012 i.e. on the date of accident. From the said document vide exhibit-30, it reveals that the claimant was brought to GNRC on 12/01/2012 at 9:30 PM with alleged history of head injury following RTA on the same day at 3:30 PM at Tarabasa, Karbi Anglong while riding a two wheeler got hit by a Bolero and was injured. He was initially treated at Civil hospital, Nagoan and then was brought to GNRC. 12. It has to be borne in mind that Motor Vehicles Act does not stipulate holding a trial for petition preferred u/s 166 of the Act. U/s 168 of the Act, a Claims Tribunal holds an enquiry to determine compensation which must appears to it to be just. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in an enquiry conducted by the Claims Tribunal as was held in State of Mysore vs. S.S. Makapur reported in (1993) 2 SCR 943 by the Hon’ble Apex court. 13. In the case of Bimla Devi and others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 13 SC 530, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that claims tribunals should not insist on strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner and that taking holistic view of the manner, evidence should be examined on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The Judgment in Bimla Devi (Supra) was relied on by the Hon’ble Supreme court in its latest Judgments in Parmeswari vs. Amirchand reported in (2011) 11 SCC 635 and Kusum Lata vs. Satbir (2011) 3 SCC 646 . 15. In the case of N.K. V. Brothers (P) Ltd vs. M. Karumal Ammal, AIR 1980 SC 1354 Hon’ble Apex Court observed: “Road accidents are one of the top killers in our country, especially when truck and bus driver operate nocturnally. This proverbial recklessness often persuades the courts as has been observed by us earlier in other cases to draw an initial presumption in several cases based on the Doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor. Accident tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Accident tribunals must take special care to see that innocent victims do not suffer and drivers and owners do not escape liability merely because of some doubt here and some obscurity there. Save in plain cases, culpability must be inferred from the circumstances where it is fairly reasonable.” 16. Regarding delay of lodging FIR, according to the leaned counsel for the insurance company, the accident took place on 12/01/2012 but the FIR was lodged on 16/02/2012 i.e. after more than one month of the accident. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the injured has sustained such injury in the accident in question. 17. It is no doubt true that there was delay in lodging the FIR but in the FIR it is mentioned that as the family members of the injured was busy for his treatment, there was delay in lodging the FIR. Moreover, there was no cross examination on the point of delay in lodging the FIR. The respondent insurance company has also not proved that there was deliberate and intentional delay in lodging the FIR. Reference may be made to the case of Sumitra Kaur and another vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd reported in (2012) 4 TAC 799 (Allahabad) in which there was no FIR at all and even then it was held that even if no FIR is lodged and even if no post mortem report is available, Tribunal may award compensation if it is satisfied that accident occurred and victim had suffered injuries. 18. Similarly, in New India Assurance Company Ltd vs. Smt. Gurubari and another reported in (2013) 1 TAC 227 (Jharkhand) there was inordinate delay of about 11 years in filling claim petition. Maintainability of the claim petition was challenged. It was held that Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial/benevolent legislation aimed at providing relief to the victims and their families, technicalities of limitation should not come in the way of claimants. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussions and unchallenged testimony of PW1 in the instant case, it is held that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending Bolero vehicle. Admittedly, the said Bolero vehicle bearing no AS09B/1079 was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd at the relevant time of accident. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 20. Admittedly, the said Bolero vehicle bearing no AS09B/1079 was duly insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd at the relevant time of accident. Hence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 20. Regarding quantum of compensation, section 166 of the Act mandates payment of just compensation. In the case of Arvind Kumar Mishra vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. Reported in (2010) 10 SCC 254 , Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while awarding compensation in personal injury cases, an attempt should be made to put the injured in the same position as far as money can do, which is reproduced as follows:- “9. We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered.” 21. In the case of Kavita vs. Deepak and others (Civil Appeal No 5945/2012 decided on 22/08/2012), Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an attempt should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical disability but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy usual amenities of life. 22. Now, turning to evidence in this case, according to the appellant/claimant, due to the alleged accident he sustained head injuries, spine fracture and fracture of right leg both bones and soft tissue injury on right leg. On the date of accident, he had admitted to GNRC hospital i.e. on 12/01/2012 and discharged on 10/02/2012 vide exhibit 30. Exhibit 31 i.e. discharge certificate of Guwahati Medical College Hospital shows that the claimant/applicant admitted to GMCH on 12/02/2012 and discharged on 13/03/2012. On examination, doctor found head injury and urethral injury and fracture of both bone right leg. From exhibit-31, it also appears that skin grafting done over raw area of right leg. Exhibit 31 i.e. discharge certificate of Guwahati Medical College Hospital shows that the claimant/applicant admitted to GMCH on 12/02/2012 and discharged on 13/03/2012. On examination, doctor found head injury and urethral injury and fracture of both bone right leg. From exhibit-31, it also appears that skin grafting done over raw area of right leg. From exhibit 30 and 31, it reveals that the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his person due to the alleged accident and there is no dispute that the injured remained hospitalized at GNRC, Guwahati and GMCH, Guwahati for more than two months and thereafter, he was also treated as an outdoor patient on subsequent period. Under such backdrop, it can reasonably be inferred that due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, he was not in a position to do any work for about 6(six) months. 23. The claimant/appellant has also produced one disability certificate vide exhibit-32 from which it reveals that the appellant/claimant was examined by the District Medical Board, Nagaon, Assam on 07/10/2013 and after examination it was assessed that the clamant is physically handicapped due to fracture of right leg both bone, fracture spine, urethral injury having 75% permanent disability. 24. To prove the disability certificate i.e. exhibit-32, no witness was examined. One initial endorsed in exhibit 32 above the seal Chairman, District Medical Board, Nagaon, Assam from which it cannot be ascertained who was the doctor put his signature (initial) on exhibit 32. It is also not clear from Ext.32 who were the other members of District Medical Board, Nagaon (Assam) at the relevant time of examination of the injured. Hence, exhibit-32 is not considered in this case. However, it is true that the claimant/appellant has sustained grievous injuries on his person due to the alleged accident, as such, he is entitled to get the amount of expenditure incurred by him for his treatment. 25. Regarding income of the injured, as per claim petition, the appellant was a businessman earning Rs.15,000/-per month from his pharmaceutical business and Rs.15,000/- from government contracts and incidental works. In support of the fact, the claimant has produced some documents i.e. exhibit 26 which is a license for running a pharmacy M/s Pranab Medical Hall at Loringthepi, Karbi Anglong and tax clearance certificates vide exhibit 27,28 and 29 of his business establishment. The insurance company has made no objection regarding income of the claimant through pharmaceutical business. In support of the fact, the claimant has produced some documents i.e. exhibit 26 which is a license for running a pharmacy M/s Pranab Medical Hall at Loringthepi, Karbi Anglong and tax clearance certificates vide exhibit 27,28 and 29 of his business establishment. The insurance company has made no objection regarding income of the claimant through pharmaceutical business. Hence, Rs. 15,000/- be considered as monthly income of the injured. Due to the alleged injuries the claimant had to confine in bed for six months, as such, his loss of income be calculated as Rs. 15,000/-X 6 = Rs. 90,000/-. As per Judgment dated 19/08/2013 passed by the Learned Trial court that on careful scrutiny of the cash memos, vouchers, prescriptions etc it is culled out that the claimant incurred medical expenditure amounting to Rs. 4,88,949/-. The said amount has also not been disputed by the insurance company at any stage. Hence, the claimant/appellant is entitled to get the aforesaid amount as his medical expenditure. 26. As the claimant/appellant had sustained grievous injuries at the age of 45/46 years, as such, he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/-for pain and suffering and Rs.50,000/-for loss of amenities. Total amount of compensation comes to Rs.6,78,949 (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Nine only). 27. In the result, appeal is allowed. The Judgment in MAC Case No. 468(N)/12 dated 17/05/2014 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Shankardevnagar, Hojai is set aside. The insurance company i.e. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.6,78,949 (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty Nine only) in the savings account of the claimant/apellant through NEFT. The claimant/appellant is directed to produce his bank details of any nationalised bank to the insurance company for necessary payment. The amount of award shall carry an interest @6% per annum. 28. Return the LCR.