delay in lodging the complaint, but on various reasons there may be a delay in lodging the complaint and that always cannot be a ground to reject the claimant's petition as per the principles law down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravi's case (supra). But at the very initial point of time, soon after the accident, just half-an-hour the injured- claimant was admitted to the hospital. The hospital authorities have mentioned in the history sheet as the motorbike was hit by an autorickshaw. Therefore, at the very initial point of time, the involvement of the autorickshaw was stated. Therefore, there could not be any documents manipulating any evidence by mentioning an autorickshaw in the MLC extract /wound certificate. Just because number of an autorickshaw is not mentioned in the hospital history sheet cannot be a ground to say that offending vehicle-autorickshaw is not involved in the accident. As observed above, quite naturally the hospital authorities/doctors are not taking history on minute aspect. They receive information in brief and stated the same in their hospital records. Under these circumstances, non-mentioning of number of the autorickshaw in MLC extract /wound certificate cannot be a
