Judgment :- Being aggrieved by the award of compensation of Rs.1,40,600/-, State Transport Corporation has preferred this appeal. 2.Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are as follows: - The respondent/claimant is a Veterinary Assistant Surgeon working at Elathagiri. Case of respondent is that on 01.03.2000 at Bangalore Majestic Bus Stand, he was seated in the last row of State Transport Corporation bus bearing Registration No.TN 23 N 1327, to go to Krishnagiri. At about 1.30 p.m. driver of the bus is alleged to have driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner at an uncontrollable speed on the speed breaker of the Bus Stand and without reducing the speed, hit the second speed breaker, due to which, the claimant, who was seated on the last row, was thrown upward and his head hit against the roof of the bus and he was thrown back to the seat. The respondent experienced excruciating pain at his back and sustained grievous injuries over inter-scapula region. Claimant had lodged a complaint, on the basis of which, case was registered in Upparapet P.S. in Cr.No.198/2000 under Sec.279 and 337 IPC. Claimant was admitted in the Government Hospital Krishnagiri and thereafter, he was admitted in private hospital and taken treatment. Alleging that the driver of STC bus was solely responsible for the accident, respondent/ claimant has filed Petition under Section 166 M.V.Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 3.Denying the accident as alleged in the Petition, appellant Corporation has filed counter statement stating that the STC bus was not at all involved in any accident on 01.03.2000 and the claimant has to prove the occurrence by strict proof. The fact that complaint was lodged after 22 days after the alleged accident would prove that there was no such accident and the claimant had not travelled in the bus. The appellant Corporation also disputed the age, income of the claimant and disability alleged. 4.Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the claim, claimant examined himself as PW-1. Dr.Ravi Kumar was examined as PW-2. Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. On the side of appellant, RWs. 1 and 2 were marked and Ex.R-1 – Complaint and Ex.R-2 Trip Sheet were marked. The appellant Corporation also disputed the age, income of the claimant and disability alleged. 4.Before the Tribunal, to substantiate the claim, claimant examined himself as PW-1. Dr.Ravi Kumar was examined as PW-2. Exs.P-1 to P-8 were marked. On the side of appellant, RWs. 1 and 2 were marked and Ex.R-1 – Complaint and Ex.R-2 Trip Sheet were marked. Referring to the evidence of PW-1 and Ex.P-1 FIR, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and on the basis of evidence of PW-2, Tribunal assessed the permanent disability at 35% and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,40,600/- under various heads. 5.Denying the accident in the bus and the alleged manner of accident, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation has submitted that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the interested version of PW-1 and Ex.P-1, and holding that the STC bus was involved in the accident. Drawing the attention of the Court to evidence and materials on record, the learned Counsel further submitted that the pleadings and evidence are entirely contradictory and the contradictions throw serious doubts about the accident. Submitting that most of the medical bills are manipulated, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Corporation further urged that claimant being Veterinary Surgeon, who is continuing his employment, has not suffered any disability as alleged by him. 6.Supporting the findings of Tribunal, the learned Counsel for the Appellant Claimant contended that denial of accident is clearly an after thought and if really there was no such accident, Karnataka Police would not have registered the FIR. It was further argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a just compensation and the same need not be interfered with. Since it is a case of denial of accident, it is for the claimant to establish the accident by convincing evidence. Claimant is a Veterinary Doctor, working in the Elathagiri. According to the claimants, on 01.03.2000, he had gone to Bangalore to see his friend and around 1.30 p.m., he boarded the Bangalore to Vellore bus bearing registration No.TN 23 N 1327 and he was seated in the last row and the driver moved the bus at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and hit the speed breaker and that he was thrown upward and has hit against the roof top of the bus and he sustained injuries. 7.In holding the inquiry, the Claims Tribunal has the power to follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf [Section 169(1)]. Under Sec.162(2), the Tribunal shall have all the powers of a civil Court. 8.The strict principles of pleadings are not applicable in cases arising out of accident and it is not necessary that there should be specific averments on the point in the claim petition. Though there is no prescribed procedure rigidly controlling the proceedings of the Tribunal, this does not confer wholly unfettered, absolute and arbitrary power on the Tribunal to do what it likes or wills. The mater truly and essentially pertains to the domain of judicial discretion governed by rules of reason and justice. Its procedure is to be consistent with the principles of fair play, natural justice and should not cause any prejudice to any party. 9.Though the proceedings are summary procedure and strict rules of evidence is not applicable, when there is denial of accident, claimant has to prove the accident by cogent evidence. Merely because it is alleged that there was an accident, it does not mean that the averments are to be accepted without any evidence or unsatisfactory evidence. When there is denial of accident, it is desirable that the claimant has to establish the manner of accident and all controversial aspects including the cause of accident. When there is denial of accident, specific finding has to be recorded as to the accident and who was responsible and the extent of liability of the insurer/STC. 10.In the present case, though there was denial of accident, Tribunal has not adverted to the contentious point. The Tribunal appears to have over-simplified the entire issue. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent on 23.03.2000, Ex.P-1 FIR was registered. When FIR was registered, necessarily, the driver and conductor must necessarily go to the police station for interrogation purposes. But the Tribunal proceeded on the footing accepting FIR as a genuine one. The Tribunal was not right in accepting the case of respondent on the premise that FIR was registered and that driver and conductor of STC had gone to the police station for investigation purposes. 11.Of course, the respondent/claimant has produced travel ticket. Apart from the travel ticket, occupant evidence ought to have been adduced to prove the accident. The Tribunal was not right in accepting the case of respondent on the premise that FIR was registered and that driver and conductor of STC had gone to the police station for investigation purposes. 11.Of course, the respondent/claimant has produced travel ticket. Apart from the travel ticket, occupant evidence ought to have been adduced to prove the accident. The Tribunal does not appear to have adverted to the delay in FIR and irreconcilable contradictions in the case of respondent/claimant. 12.According to the respondent, he had taken treatment at four places. (1) First aid treatment at Bangalore Hospital on 01.03.2000; (2) Treatment with Dr.Ravi Kumar, immediately on arrival in Krishnagiri; (3) Treatment at Government Hospital, Krishnagiri; (4) Further treatment at Padma Clinic as in-patient. 13.According to the respondent, immediately after the accident on 01.03.2000, he had taken first aid at Bangalore Hospital and then he proceeded to Krishnagiri. Absolutely, no evidence was adduced in respect of treatment taken at Bangalore. As noted earlier, claimant is alleged to have gone to Bangalore on 23.03.2000 and he has lodged a complaint on the basis of which, a case was registered in Cr.No.198/2000 under Sec.279 and 337 IPC of Upparapet P.S. In Ex.P-1 complaint, respondent had given a totally different version. In Ex.P-1, the respondent has alleged that he experienced excruciating pain at his back and co-passenger offered him analgeric tablets and he continued his journey in the same bus, after paying fare and he got down in Hosur and took some more tablets and reached Krishnagiri in another bus. Thereafter, he went to Krishnagiri Government Hospital. The evidence of PW-1 totally contradicts his own statement in Ex.P-1. 14.Respondent/claimant got himself admitted in Krishnagiri Government Hospital only on 03.03.2000 and he was discharged on the same day. As is seen from Ex.A-3 series, claimant was admitted in Padma Polyclinic on 01.03.2000 and had taken treatment as in-patient for thirty days. In Ex.P-13 series [Sl.No.7], claimant was charged bed charges for thirty days @ Rs.200 per day. The said Document would indicate that the claimant had taken treatment as in-patient in Padma Polyclinic for thirty days. 15.It remains unexplained as to how he would have gone to Bangalore on 23.03.2000 and lodge Ex.P-1 complaint since as per Ex.A-3 the claimant had taken treatment for thirty days as in-patient and these two versions contradict each other. The said Document would indicate that the claimant had taken treatment as in-patient in Padma Polyclinic for thirty days. 15.It remains unexplained as to how he would have gone to Bangalore on 23.03.2000 and lodge Ex.P-1 complaint since as per Ex.A-3 the claimant had taken treatment for thirty days as in-patient and these two versions contradict each other. As against the inconsistent version of the claimant, STC has adduced rebuttal evidence. Denying any accident, RW-1 has stated that on 01.03.2000, no such passenger travelled in the bus and no ticket was issued to any passenger for travelling to Krishnagiri. To substantiate his evidence, Ex.R-2 - Trip Sheet of the bus was produced. If claimant had actually travelled in the same bus, trip sheet would have reflected the travel of passenger from Bangalore to Krishnagiri. Absence of any entry in Ex.R-2 Trip Sheet throws serious doubt upon the version of the respondent. If really any such accident had occurred in the bus at Majestic Bus Stand, it would not have gone unnoticed. 16.In order to obtain Decree for the award, claimant has to prove the accident by adducing acceptable evidence. During cross-examination of the claimant, certain questions were put to him suggesting that he was not properly holding the luggage inside the bus and he was not properly standing and he was responsible for the accident. The learned Counsel for the respondent/claimant has submitted that having suggested to PW-1 that he was not standing properly in the bus, plea of denial of accident is clearly an afterthought. This contention does not merit acceptance. The respondent/claimant who has come to the Court, seeking to pass award for compensation, has to establish his case by adducing acceptable evidence. The suggestions put to PW-1 during his cross examination would hardly be of any assistance to the claimant to establish the accident. 17.Serious doubts arise as to the accident, coupled with the fact that there was enormous delay in lodging the complaint. Ex.P-1 complaint was lodged only on 23.03.2000. Reason for delay has not been properly explained. It is not as if respondent/claimant is a layman. Respondent being a veterinary surgeon, if any accident had really happened, he would have immediately lodged the complaint. The delay in lodging the complaint also throws serious doubts as to the accident alleged by the claimant. 18.Yet another reason to doubt the claimants version is to be noted. It is not as if respondent/claimant is a layman. Respondent being a veterinary surgeon, if any accident had really happened, he would have immediately lodged the complaint. The delay in lodging the complaint also throws serious doubts as to the accident alleged by the claimant. 18.Yet another reason to doubt the claimants version is to be noted. Ex.A-3 series is the medical bills for Rs.30,624.75/-. It contains as many as 26 medical bills. All the medical bills are for Rs.3275. The medical bills enclosed in Ex.A-3 series also throw serious doubts about the claim that it might have been inflated to make a claim. 19.For awarding compensation to the claimant, the Tribunal overlooked the inherent contradiction and telltale circumstances, raising serious doubts on the claimants version. When the Tribunal has ignored the material evidence, the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant sustained injury in the accident cannot be endorsed with. As the claimant has not established the manner of accident by satisfactory evidence, claimant is not entitled to any compensation. The award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 20.The award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 26.04.2002 passed in MCOP 111/2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Sub Judge), Krishnagiri is set aside and this CMA is allowed. No costs. The Claim Petition filed by the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.111/2000 is dismissed. In C.M.P.No.16467 of 2002 claimant was permitted to withdraw 50% of the award amount. If the claimant had withdrawn the 50% of the award amount, appellant Corporation is at liberty to take steps to recover the amount. Appellant Corporation is entitled to withdraw the balance amount lying to the credit of MCOP No.111/2000.