Judgment :- This appeal arises out of the award dated 08.07.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vizianagaram in M.O.P. No. 901 of 2005. 2. The respondent-claimant filed the claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred at 7.00 p.m., on 01.06.2005. After making an enquiry into the claim, the Tribunal passed the award granting compensation of Rs.73,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 3. Assailing the said award, the appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Visakhapatnam which is the second respondent before the Tribunal filed the present appeal. 4. Challenge to the award by the appellant is on the ground that the claim petition is filed on false and invented grounds, the Tribunal should not have awarded any compensation to the first respondent/claimant since it is prompted by malafides. 5. The background facts relevant for consideration in this appeal may be stated as follows: The first respondent is a legal practitioner in Junior Civil Judge's Court, S. Kota , Vizianagaram District. While he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No. AP 35B 9077 from S. Kota towards Jami village, one G. Srinivasa Rao came driving the motor cycle Bajaj CT 100 bearing No. AP 31 AH 8021 in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed his motor cycle near Sobha Memorial Degree College, Jami, and the accident occurred at 7.00 p.m., on 01.06.2005. In the said accident, the first respondent sustained fracture to his left hand and some injuries on the other parts of his body. 6. It is the version of the petitioner in the claim petition filed by him before the Tribunal that immediately after the accident he was taken to Sri Sai Super Speciality Hospital of Dr. A. Sreeramamurthy, MS Ortho, Vizianagaram and he was treated in the hospital as inpatient. He is a legal practitioner having good amount of work at Junior Civil Judge's Court, S.Kota and also in other Courts in Vizianagaram District. He was aged 36 years on the date of accident and his income is said to be Rs.6,000/- per month. A. Sreeramamurthy, MS Ortho, Vizianagaram and he was treated in the hospital as inpatient. He is a legal practitioner having good amount of work at Junior Civil Judge's Court, S.Kota and also in other Courts in Vizianagaram District. He was aged 36 years on the date of accident and his income is said to be Rs.6,000/- per month. According to him, as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident he received permanent disability and is not able to perform his regular duties. He filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, S. Kota which was forwarded to the police and thereafter the Station House Officer, Jami police station registered a case in Cr. No. 40 of 2005 under Section 338 of IPC against G. Srinivasa Rao who was driving the motor cycle basing on the complaint forwarded by the Magistrate. The second respondent is the owner of the motor cycle Bajaj CT 100 bearing No. AP 31 AH 8021, whereas the appellant is it's insurer. Since the offending vehicle belonging to the second respondent was insured with the appellant on the date of accident, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to him. 7. The second respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The appellant insurance company stoutly opposed the claim of the first respondent contenting inter alia that the first respondent being an Advocate did not inform the police about the occurrence of the accident and the F.I.R. was registered basing on the complaint filed by the first respondent with the delay of 53 days, which was forwarded by the Magistrate to the police. It was further contended that the first respondent did not even mention about the delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate and the reasons for the said delay. According to the appellant on account of the inordinate delay it is absolutely not possible for the police to find out the exact cause of the accident by observing the place of occurrence, getting the crime vehicle inspected by the motor vehicles inspector and by examining the witnesses soon after the accident. According to the appellant on account of the inordinate delay it is absolutely not possible for the police to find out the exact cause of the accident by observing the place of occurrence, getting the crime vehicle inspected by the motor vehicles inspector and by examining the witnesses soon after the accident. Nextly it was contended that since the accident was allegedly by collision between two wheelers coming opposite to each other, it is highly difficult to the police to ascertain the true facts in regard to the actual cause of accident because there was abnormal delay in registering the F.I.R. due to latches on the part of the first respondent. 8. Basing on the rival contentions, the first issue framed by the learned Tribunal is whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle Bajaj CT 100 bearing No. AP 31 AH 8021 by the person who was driving the said vehicle whereas the second issue relates to the quantum of compensation as well as the liability to pay the same. 9. Before the learned Tribunal, the first respondent examined himself as P.W- 1 and examined the doctor who treated him as P.W-2. He marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. The appellant insurance company examined the Assistant Manager (legal) as R.W-1 and marked the copy of policy as Ex.B-1. 10. Since the appellant insurance company disowns its liability on the ground that the first respondent made a false claim and absolutely there was no proof before the Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Bajaj CT 100 bearing No. AP 31 AH 8021 by the person who was driving the said vehicle at relevant time, the main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the finding of the learned Tribunal that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle Bajaj CT 100 bearing No. AP 31 AH 8021 can be sustained. The other question regarding quantum of compensation arises for discussion in the event of upholding the justification of the finding arrived at by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the appellant/insurance company. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the first respondent. 12. The other question regarding quantum of compensation arises for discussion in the event of upholding the justification of the finding arrived at by the Tribunal fastening the liability on the appellant/insurance company. 11. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the first respondent. 12. There is no dispute about the fact that the accident was caused while two motor cycles dashed against each other, one is driven by the first respondent and the other is driven by G. Srinivasa Rao. It is the version of the first respondent that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the G. Srinivasa Rao who came driving the motor cycle Bajaj CT 100 bearing No. AP AH 8021 in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction. Except the testimony of the first respondent who was examined as P.W-1 there was no evidence of any other eyewitness before the Tribunal. However, the first respondent also relied upon Ex.A-1 true copy of the F.I.R, Ex.A-3 true copy of the charge sheet, Ex.A-4 true copy of motor vehicle inspector's report. In the normal course there is no difficulty to act upon the sole testimony of the injured in the accident, more particularly when there is no evidence adduced by the opposite party. But in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, the evidence adduced by the first respondent/claimant has to be scrutinized with great care and caution keeping in mind the admitted facts viz., the first respondent who is no other than the advocate not lodging the report with the police soon after the accident, admitting in a private hospital, filing a complaint before the Magistrate with regard to the accident after long lapse of time of 53 days after the accident took place and the other circumstances mentioned in the counter filed by the appellant/insurance company. 13. The explanation offered by the first respondent about the delay in filing the complaint and not lodging the report with the police soon after the accident is that the driver of the offending vehicle promised him to settle the matter, he waited for settlement but ultimately as the said person did not keep his promise he had to file the complaint before the Magistrate with a delay of 53 days. The learned Tribunal more particularly keeping in view that the first respondent is a legal practitioner arrived at a definite finding that there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint and the same was not properly explained by the first respondent. But expressed the view that since Ex.A-3, the true copy of charge sheet filed by the first respondent indicates that the police after conducting thorough investigation came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of G. Srinivasa Rao whom the second respondent authorized to drive the offending vehicle, reliance can be placed on the said document. However, the positive finding of the Tribunal on record that the explanation offered by the first respondent that he kept quiet for 53 days without lodging report with the police or filing a complaint before the Magistrate as the driver of the offending vehicle promised him to settle the matter is not just and reasonable and that he ought to have lodged the report and should have effected compromise only after lodging report clearly indicates that the learned Tribunal was not convinced with the explanation offered by the respondent. 14. The learned Tribunal upon considering the principles laid down in the cases viz., Sanasapuri Pedda Sambamurthi Vs. K. Rama Rao ( 1997(1) APLJ 394 ) and APSRTC, Hyderabad Vs. Smt. T. Yashodha ( 1996(4) ALT 1133 ) proceeded to hold that the appreciation of evidence in a compensation claim under Motor Vehicles Act should not be strictly in accordance with the rules of Evidence Act but should be based on appreciation of totality of the circumstances, if a technical procedure is adopted insisting upon strict proof of each and every fact the very purpose of the Act would be defeated. Holding as such, the learned Tribunal arrived at the conclusion that it is enough on the part of the first respondent to establish the accident and the burden is on the appellant to establish that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. According to the learned Tribunal, since there is no evidence adduced by the appellant showing that the offending vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner, it has to be held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the person who was driving Bajaj CT motor cycle. According to the learned Tribunal, since there is no evidence adduced by the appellant showing that the offending vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner, it has to be held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the person who was driving Bajaj CT motor cycle. Arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Tribunal held that the second respondent being the owner, and the appellant, being the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent. 15. Thoroughly examining the finding reached at by the learned Tribunal, in the light of the arguments advanced on both sides, I am of the considered view that the conclusion reached by the learned Tribunal is wholly misconceived and the approach adopted by the Tribunal in the matter of appreciating evidence having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case is contrary to the settled legal principles. 16. The contention urged by the appellant is that the claim of the first respondent is not only false but also fraudulent and he, having colluded with the second respondent who is the owner of the vehicle made a false claim. The facts undisputed are that the first respondent being a legal practitioner did not lodge report with the police soon after the accident. P.W-2 who is considered to be an experienced orthopaedic surgeon also did not inform about the medico legal case to the police concerned. Further, there is abnormal delay of 53 days in filing the complaint before the Magistrate. This is not the conduct expected of a legal practitioner who had put in considerable experience. His normal course of conduct should be to report the incident to the police soon after the accident or at least within a reasonable time. The learned Tribunal also gave a positive finding that there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint and it was not properly explained by the first respondent. The theory put forth by the first respondent that the delay occasioned due to the promise made by the person driving the offending vehicle to settle the matter is not at all believed by the learned Tribunal. 17. In this context, it is essential to refer to the following decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in General Insurance Council Vs. 17. In this context, it is essential to refer to the following decision relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant in General Insurance Council Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh ( 2007 ACJ 2006 ) wherein the apex Court held as follows: Section 158(6) of Motor Vehicles Act casts statutory obligation on the police to give information to Claims Tribunal having jurisdiction about any accident involving death or bodily injury to any person as soon as the information is recorded or report completed with copy to the concerned insurance company. The compliance with requirements would rule out filing of false claims and job of claims Tribunals would become easier and the Petitioner state that large number of cases alleging sufficient injuries are being filed long after the accident adding to the pendency to the claim petitions and delay promotes exaggeration and frauds, makes investigation and fact verification extremely difficult and insurance companies suffer on account of higher claim costs. 18. In response to the prayer of the petitioners, the apex Court issued direction to various State Governments and Union territories to ensure that mandate of Section 158 (6) of the Motor Vehicles Act is complied with without exception. 19. Perusal of Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act indicates that if a copy of the report regarding the accident is available with the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, he shall also within thirty days of receipt of such report, forward the same to the claims Tribunal and insurer. 20. Thus, the object of Section 158(6) of the Act is to ensure prompt and fruitful investigation, to avoid false and fraudulent claims and also to safeguard the interests of the victims of the motor accidents. In the instant case, the genuineness of the claim made by the first respondent has to be tested basing on the circumstances in which the private complaint regarding the accident came to be filed before the Magistrate with abnormal delay and the natural course of human behaviour. The significant feature which requires careful consideration is that the first respondent conveniently omitted to mention anything about the delay in lodging the report with the police as well as the delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate in his claim petition filed before the Tribunal. The significant feature which requires careful consideration is that the first respondent conveniently omitted to mention anything about the delay in lodging the report with the police as well as the delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate in his claim petition filed before the Tribunal. For the first time in his evidence before the Tribunal he sought to explain the delay stating that it was on account of the promise made by the second respondent to settle the matter. The very fact that the first respondent who is an advocate by profession did not lodge any report with the police about the accident and filed a private complaint before the Magistrate with a delay of 53 days indicates that there is every possibility of collusion between the driver/owner and the first respondent. Since there is abnormal delay in filing the complaint before the Magistrate without informing the police about the incident, it is obligatory on the part of the first respondent to examine the driver/owner of the offending vehicle to prove the explanation offered by him that the delay was occasioned only on account of the talks of compromise between the parties. From the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the possibility of the first respondent receiving some amount under the compromise with the driver/owner of the vehicle and filing the claim petition to have undue advantage for extracting some more amount from the appellant/insurance company cannot also altogether be ruled out. All these doubts have to be repelled by the first respondent by adducing cogent evidence, but he did not adduce any satisfactory evidence before the Tribunal to prove that his claim is true and genuine. The Tribunal having arrived at a positive conclusion that the explanation offered by the first respondent regarding the abnormal delay of filing the complaint before the Magistrate is quite unconvincing erroneously held that Ex.A-1, true copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A-3 true copy of charge sheet disclose negligence on the part of the person who was driving the offending vehicle. In fact those two documents are nothing but the reproduction of the complaint petition filed by the first respondent. In fact those two documents are nothing but the reproduction of the complaint petition filed by the first respondent. Without there being any authentic evidence and without considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal has fallen into grave error in arriving at the conclusion that the first respondent/claimant proved that the accident was on account of rash and negligent driving of the person who was driving the Bajaj CT motor cycle. The finding of the learned Tribunal which is the result of non-application of mind to the evidence available on record and the facts and circumstances of the case is unsustainable in law and is liable to be set aside. 21. For the foregoing reasons the finding of the Tribunal on the first issue that the accident resulting in injuries to the first respondent was due to rash and negligent driving of the Bajaj CT 100 motor cycle bearing No. AP 31 AH 8021 is set aside in this appeal. Consequently the finding of the Tribunal on the second issue fastening the liability on the appellant/insurance company and awarding compensation to the first respondent claimant is also set aside. 22. Therefore, the first respondent is not entitled for any compensation and the claim petition MOP. No. 901 of 2005 filed by him is dismissed. 23. In the result, the appeal is allowed granting costs throughout.