JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has challenged the award dated 26.8.2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar whereby his claim has been dismissed and prosecution for offence under Section 193 IPC have been ordered to be initiated against him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that allegedly, on 13.1.2001, when the appellant was coming from his duty from the office of the Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation in the evening, he was hit by a jeep, bearing Registration No. RJ-23-G-0179. Consequently, he sustained injuries. However in reply to the claim petition, the driver of the jeep denied the occurrence of the said accident. Similarly, the Insurance Company also doubted the veracity of the accident and contended that although the accident is alleged to have been taken place on 13.1.2005, the First Information Report was not lodged till 25.1.2001 i.e. after an inordinate delay of 12 days. The learned Tribunal framed two issues. In order to prove his case, the claimant examined himself and Hari Singh and submitted eleven documents. The non-claimants examined a single witness and submitted three documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was not only pleased to dismissed the claim petition, but was also pleased to direct that prosecution for the offence under Section 193 IPC be started against him. 3. Mr. Anoop Dhand the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that merely because there is an inordinate delay in lodging of the FIR would not lead to the conclusion that no accident had taken place. In fact, the said delay was explained by the injured himself by claiming that the driver and owner had come to him for striking a compromise.and a settlement outside the court. Since the compromise could not be reached between the parties therefore, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of twelve days. He has further contended that since a charge-sheet has been submitted by the police against the respondent No. 1, it cannot be held that the offence under Section 193 IPC prima facie is made out against the appellant. Hence, the part of the award directing that the prosecution for offence under Section 193 IPC should be initiated, this part should be deleted. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned award. 5. Hence, the part of the award directing that the prosecution for offence under Section 193 IPC should be initiated, this part should be deleted. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the impugned award. 5. According to the claimant, immediately after the alleged accident, he was taken to the hospital where he remained for ten days. Despite this claim, the appellant has not produced any material evidence to show the nature of the injury suffered by him and the duration of his stay in the hospital. The injury report (Ex.7) was, in fact, drawn up by the Doctors on 31.1.2001 i.e. after a delay of 18 days and that too at the request of the police. In case, the claimant was taken to the hospital immediately after the alleged accident, an injury report would have been drawn up by the Doctor on duty on 13.1.2001. There should be sufficient medical documentation to prove the factum of the inquiry and the fact that the appellant had stayed in the hospital for ten days. In his cross-examination, the appellant has admitted that when he was taken to the hospital, he told the Doctor that he had sustained injuries in a fall at home. This admission lets the cat out of the leg. It clearly proves that after having sustained a fall at home, the appellant has fabricated a false case in order to receive some compensation. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the testimony of the appellant and his witness. The impugned award is, thus, absolutely legal and valid. 6. Repeatedly, this Court is noticing the filing of the false cases by unscrupulous and greedy persons. Such persons are abusing the bounty of the law and generosity of the Court. Although, the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 is a social beneficial piece of legislation, but the Court should be vigilant that the law is abused by unprincipled people for their selfish interest. The action of the appellant and his ilk should be depreciated in the highest term. Merely because the police had submitted a charge-sheet against the driver would not lead to the conclusion that the accident had taken place. In fact, the finding of the learned Tribunal, the judgment of Civil Court, would be binding on the Criminal Court. The action of the appellant and his ilk should be depreciated in the highest term. Merely because the police had submitted a charge-sheet against the driver would not lead to the conclusion that the accident had taken place. In fact, the finding of the learned Tribunal, the judgment of Civil Court, would be binding on the Criminal Court. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in directing that the prosecution for offence under Section 193 IPC should be initiated against the appellant. In case, stringent steps are not taken against those who file false cases before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, the Tribunals will be inundated with fabricated cases. The flood of false cases has to be rolled back. 7. In the result, we do not find any force in this appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******