ORDER : (Ashutosh Kumar, J.) The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (for short 'RSRTC') under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1973 against the judgment and award dated 10.06.2009 passed by Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/Motor Accident Claim Tribunal), Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in MACT Case No.537/2008 (520/2005), whereby the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondent No.1 - Kaluram (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimant') and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- in favour of the claimant. 2. Brief facts relevant for the present purposes are that Moolchand, brother of the claimant (Kaluram) submitted a written complaint before SHO, Sadar, Sanganer stating therein that his brother - Kaluram was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No.RJ-14-51M-0013 to Sanagner on 12.11.2004 at 4.30 p.m. A Roadways Bus bearing registration No.RJ-14-P-6727 came from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and collided with the motorcycle of his brother, due to which his brother sustained serious injuries. Soon after the accident Kaluram was admitted in Dhanwantari Hospital, Jaipur. It was also stated by brother of the injured - Mool Chand that he was busy in attending his injured brother (Kaluram) in the hospital. Therefore, he could not submit the report earlier. 3. On the said report, an FIR No.457/2004 was lodged at Police Station Sanaganer Sadar, Jaipur for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 337 of IPC and after investigation a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC. 4. Thereafter, injured - Kaluram submitted a claim petition against the driver of the offending vehicle and RSRTC claiming compensation of Rs.21,10,000/- because he had incurred permanent disability. 5. The non-claimant - driver of the offending vehicle did not file reply to the claim petition. The appellant - RSRTC filed its reply and stated that accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the claimant himself alleging that the claimant himself slipped and got injured. The RSRTC averred that there is no involvement of the bus of appellant - RSRTC in the said accident. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. 6. After taking evidence on record the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal. 7. The RSRTC averred that there is no involvement of the bus of appellant - RSRTC in the said accident. It was prayed that claim petition be dismissed. 6. After taking evidence on record the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award. Hence, the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered the fact that FIR of the case was lodged belatedly and that too without giving any reason. 8. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the claimant was riding negligently on his motorcycle, he himself slipped on the road and got injured. The appellant averred that the driver of the offending vehicle was not at all negligent in driving of the bus of the appellant. It was also submitted that learned Tribunal has erred in considering the disability certificate in favour of the claimant, as the certificate has not duly been proved since no doctor was examined for proving it. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the claimant was under treatment in one hospital whereas the disability certificate has been issued by the doctors of some different hospital. 10. It was also contended that the learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant on higher side without any justifiable reason. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be quashed and set aside. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant - respondent has supported the impugned judgment and award and contended that there is no merit in this appeal and the same be dismissed. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. So far as the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, during the course of investigation the site plan (Ex.6) was prepared of the place of occurrence and the same was marked as 'X'. In that site plan the offending vehicle was coming from Shikarpura and the claimant was going from Dadiya to Shikarpura. The place of occurrence as noted in the site plan makes it clear that driver of the offending vehicle took the vehicle on extreme wrong side and committed the accident, which shows negligence of the driver. 14. In that site plan the offending vehicle was coming from Shikarpura and the claimant was going from Dadiya to Shikarpura. The place of occurrence as noted in the site plan makes it clear that driver of the offending vehicle took the vehicle on extreme wrong side and committed the accident, which shows negligence of the driver. 14. The mechanic inspection report of the motorcycle (Ex.8), seizure memo of bus (Ex.9) and mechanical inspection report of bus (Ex.10) make it clear that the front side of the motorcycle has been damaged and scratch marks on the driver side of the bus have also been observed (as mentioned in Ex.9 and Ex.10). All these three documents have sufficiently proved the collision between motorcycle and the offending vehicle. Scratch marks on driver side of the bus make it abundantly clear that it was the driver of the bus who took the bus on wrong side and committed the accident. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that no accident by the bus was committed is not sustainable. 15. The accident in this case occurred on 12.11.2004 and the injured was taken and admitted in Dhanwantari Hospital on the same day i.e. on 12.11.2004. As per the report (Ex.18) injured - Kaluram was operated on 13.11.2004 and the FIR of this case was lodged on 15.11.2004. 16. In the FIR (Ex.3), it has specifically been mentioned that because Kaluram (the injured) was seriously injured, the complainant - Moolchand (brother of the injured) could not come to police station, as he was attending his brother at the hospital. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is sufficient reason for lodging the FIR with a delay of two days, which cannot be said to be fatal for the claim petition. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to delay in the filing the FIR is not sustainable. 17. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that learned Tribunal has committed a grave error in considering the disability certificate, which is suspicious in nature, is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the disability certificate of injured Kaluram (Ex.16) has been issued by Government RDBP Jaipuria Hospital, Jaipur by a Board of three doctors, which is per se admissible in evidence. If the appellant - RSRTC had any doubt about disability certificate, it had all the rights to call the doctor/authority, who had issued the certificate for cross-examination. At this stage, the appellant cannot create a doubt upon such certificate, which has been duly issued by a Board of three doctors constituted by a Government Hospital. Thus, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in believing the disability certificate. 18. With regards to the contention of the learned counsel of the appellant that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant - respondent on a higher side, this Court is of the view that in the claim petition the claimant has mentioned his monthly income as Rs.6000/-. It has also been mentioned that the claimant is a driver by profession. In his evidence (AW.1) he has deposed that he owns a truck No.RJ.14-2G-5116 and by driving the said truck he used to earn Rs.6000/- per month before the accident. 19. The claimant has exhibited the registration certificate of his truck as Ex.16 and his driving license as Ex.17. 20. As per the Ex.16 claimant - Kaluram is registered owner of truck bearing registration No.RJ-14-2G-5116. The driving license (Ex.17) of the claimant also shows that the claimant was entitled to drive transport vehicle w.e.f. 29.04.2004 to 28.04.2007, which means that on the date of accident, the claimant was possessing driving license to drive transport vehicle. Ex.17 is sufficient document to prove that injured - claimant can be placed in the category of skilled labour. On the date of accident daily wages of skilled labour was Rs.81/-, which comes to about Rs.2400/- per month. Ex.16 has proved that the claimant was the owner of a truck, which was his only source of income. Therefore, in the impugned judgment the monthly income determined by the learned Tribunal as Rs.3000/- cannot be termed as income determined on a higher side and it surely cannot be said that the compensation is erroneous. Thus, this contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is also not sustainable. 21. In view of the discussions foregoing, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. 22. The instant appeal is thus, dismissed. 23. Stay application also stands dismissed. 24. Record of the learned Tribunal be sent back forthwith.