Judgment :- 1. This case is a classic example as to how a benevolent legislation like the Motor Vehicles Act has been misused by unscrupulous persons to get compensation under the guise of a victim of a motor accident. More paining is the fact that the claimant is a Government servant. 2. Claimant is the appellant. Claimant, on dismissal of his claim petition in respect of the claim made and injury sustained, has come forward with this appeal. 3. The case of the Appellant is that on 24.06.2002, he was driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 04 C 1183 from Chidambaram to Bhuavanagiri on official duty. One Mr.Rasaiah was accompanying the appellant as pillion rider. While so, a private bus bearing registration no.TN-46-B-6129 dashed the appellants motorcycle from behind. Due to the impact, the appellant sustained fracture on his left leg and his vehicle was also damaged. The pillion rider Mr.Rasaiya took the appellant to a private Hospital of one Dr.Senthilnathan, wherein the appellant was given first aid. Thereafter, according to the appellant, he took native treatment from Puthur, a village in Andhra Pradesh. As the treatment was not successful, the appellant got admitted in Government Hospital, Cuddalore on 05.07.2002 wherein he continued his treatment as an in-patient up to 22.07.2002. On 08.07.2002, a complaint was preferred with the Chidambaram Town Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.366/2002 for offences under Sections 279 and 337 I.P.C. But unfortunately, the Tribunal has concluded that there was a delay in launching FIR and also has noted that the Doctor who has given first aid has not mentioned that the Appellant sustained fracture due to accident. The Tribunal also observed that non examination of the driver of the bus was fatal to the case and ultimately, the very claim petition was dismissed. Challenging the said dismissal, the Appellant has preferred this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the fact that the Appellant got admitted in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and was given treatment is proved. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, Doctor, are clear, cogent and convincing. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in overlooking these evidences and rejecting the claim petition. The delay in lodging the First Information Report has also been explained by the Appellant that as he was taking treatment in Puthur and his family members were assisting him, they could not give the complaint. 5. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in overlooking these evidences and rejecting the claim petition. The delay in lodging the First Information Report has also been explained by the Appellant that as he was taking treatment in Puthur and his family members were assisting him, they could not give the complaint. 5. The learned counsel for the Respondent/insurance company would first of all raise serious doubts about the occurrence of the alleged accident. When the occurrence itself is denied, duty is cast upon the claimant to prove the accident. Only if the initial burden is discharged, the burden shifts on the Insurance Company. In this case, excepting PW1, nobody else was examined. It is important to note that the alleged pillion rider, viz. Mr.Rasaiah, colleague of the Appellant, was not examined. Mr.Rasaiah is the best available evidence and his non-examination casts serious doubts on the veracity of the claim of accident. 6. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the first document viz., Ex.P-6. It is the prescription issued by Dr.Senthilnathan who gave first aid to the Appellant. No where in the prescription, the cause of injuries is given as accident. Also, no evidence was produced for the alleged native treatment taken at Puthur, Andhra Pradesh. The Appellant got admitted in Government Hospital, Cuddalore on 05.07.2002. But the police complaint was given only on 08.07.2002 that too not by the Appellant, but by his father-in-law. It is also not explained why the pillion rider, who is also a Government Servant, has not given the complaint. Even in the first information report, it is very categorically stated "TAMIL" i.e. they did not have the required information for launching the police complaint. When that being the fact, it is not known how the vehicle number was included for the first time in the first information report, when especially the Appellants father-in-law was not in the scene of occurrence. Considering all these facts, the lower court has rightly come to the conclusion that the alleged accident was not proved by the Appellant and dismissed the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the findings of the Tribunal may be confirmed and the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration is, "whether the appellant is entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company due to the accident, when the very accident is denied ?" 8. The learned counsel for the respondent prayed that the findings of the Tribunal may be confirmed and the appeal may be dismissed. 7. Heard both sides. The short point for consideration is, "whether the appellant is entitled to get any compensation from the insurance company due to the accident, when the very accident is denied ?" 8. The case of the appellant is that on 24.06.2002, he was driving the vehicle along with a pillion rider from Chidambaram to Buvanagiri. He was going on an official duty. Both the appellant and the pillion rider are Government servants. According to the appellant, a bus coming behind came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. Immediately, the pillion rider took the Appellant to Senthil Nursing Home and first aid was given. Doctor has diagnosed fracture on the left leg of the appellant. Thereafter, the took native treatment in Puthur village of Andhra Pradesh. 9. Ex.P-6, prescription sheet, issued by Dr.Senthilnathan, dated 24.06.2002, is an important document in this case. The Doctor has only mentioned fracture of tibia on the left leg. There is no whisper about the cause of fracture. Normally, when an injured person is treated, doctor would make an entry about the cause of the injury whether it was due to accident or fire or assault. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the cause of injury has not been mentioned by the Doctor and this is fatal to this case. The Tribunal has considered this aspect and rightly rejected the claim. 10. It is also very curious to note that the appellant as well as the pillion driver, who are Government servants, have not cared to give police complaint the moment the accident took place. It is admitted in the cross examination of PW-1 that police station was situated less than 1½ kms from the accident spot and there were lot of persons available at the time of accident and it was a crowded place. He also categorically admits that he did not give complaint and it was only his father-in-law who has given the complaint on 08.07.2002. He also does not give any explanation why the pillion rider who has taken him to hospital has not been examined. In the cross examination, the appellant would admit as under :- TAMIL 11. He also categorically admits that he did not give complaint and it was only his father-in-law who has given the complaint on 08.07.2002. He also does not give any explanation why the pillion rider who has taken him to hospital has not been examined. In the cross examination, the appellant would admit as under :- TAMIL 11. In the cross examination, he would further admit that even at the time of admission in the Government General Hospital on 05.07.2002 under Ex.P-10, Admission Register, the cause of fracture is not mentioned as accident. In fact, if we analyze Ex.P-10, originally he was treated as an out patient on 05.07.2002. Later, he was admitted as an in-patient on the same day. Even in the Accident Register, though there is a mention about accident, the details regarding bus number or other details about lodging of police complaint are not given. If really, accident had taken place on 24.06.2002 and no First Information Report was given, the first thing which the complainant, who is a Government servant, would give is, the registration number of the vehicle and the nature of accident. Nothing is mentioned in the accident register which is the first Government record. Non mentioning of the bus number in Ex.P-4, Wound Certificate, coupled with the fact that he was treated as an out patient initially and admitted as inpatient on the same day and the accident register being entered on the same day, as rightly pointed out by the court below, creates suspicion in the mind of the court. Above all these things, even after admission on 05.07.2002 in the Government hospital, it is not explained why the First Information Report has not been lodged till 08.07.2002. This delay of three days is very fatal to the case. 12. Now, let us examine the First Information Report. It was given by the father-in-law instead of the appellant or the pillion rider. As mentioned earlier, complaint was not given at the earliest as they did not have the necessary information. The word "necessary information", as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent would only mean that they were searching for a vehicle number and the manner of accident. Curiously, in the First Information Report, registration number of the vehicle is given. 13. The word "necessary information", as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent would only mean that they were searching for a vehicle number and the manner of accident. Curiously, in the First Information Report, registration number of the vehicle is given. 13. One more important factor is, First Information Report was given on 08.07.2002 at 11 a.m. On the same day at about 1.10 p.m., the Motor Vehicle Inspector has inspected the bus. The alleged bus was admittedly a route bus. It should have been plying at that time. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, it is not possible to secure the bus for inspection at a very short duration. Not only the bus, the vehicle driven by the Appellant was also inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. I only pray, if every department of this country exhibited such swiftness in execution of work, India would have been in a better position but alas, such actions are seen only in extreme cases. 14. Even in the M.V.Inspectors report, he would categorically state that there was no damage to the bus and there was no mechanical defect. If we curiously look at Ex.P-2, the M.V.Inspectors report, in the date column, the date is altered from 08.08.2002 to 08.07.2002. But in the signature column, the date is mentioned as 08.07.2002. Under Ex.P-3, the same M.V. Inspector has also inspected the two wheeler owned by the appellant at 12.40 p.m. He has certified "no damage to the vehicle". In the cross examination, when questioned about Ex.P-3, with regard to no damage to his vehicle, the Appellant has said that the vehicle was repaired by his father-in-law. But neither the father-in-law nor the mechanic who repaired the vehicle were examined to substantiate this fact. 15. It is interesting to note that everything has happened in this case between 11 a.m. and 1.10 p.m. In a matter of two hours, the vehicles were recovered from the respective parties. Motor Vehicle Inspector comes to the police station, inspects two vehicles and submits his report on the same day without even recording statement from the injured person, who was admittedly in hospital. Nowhere the Motor Vehicle Inspector has said that he has recorded a statement from the injured person in respect of the accident or any statement from the driver of the bus. Nowhere the Motor Vehicle Inspector has said that he has recorded a statement from the injured person in respect of the accident or any statement from the driver of the bus. Therefore, a cursory perusal of these things would clearly show that all was not well with the complaint. 16. Non examination of the Appellants father-in-law who lodged First Information Report and who is alleged to have got the motorcycle repaired is very fatal. This casts serious doubts about the veracity of the claim. Motor Vehicle Inspector who issued Exs.P-2 and P-3 was also not examined. It is also important to note that the owner of the vehicle has remained exparte. 17. It is not explained anywhere in the chief examination why a police complaint was not given immediately. The alleged accident took place on 24.06.2002. But police complaint was given only on 08.07.2002. Even while getting admitted in Government Hospital on 05.07.2002, cause of fracture was not given in the initial hospital records. In the cross examination, Appellant has deposed thus :- TAMIL 18. Though Motor Vehicle Inspector has categorically stated that there was no damage to the vehicle of the appellant, in the cross examination, the appellant has said :: TAMIL 19. Therefore, a cumulative reading of the entire evidence of PW-1 raises serious doubt the accident. The evidence of PW-1 is not at all convincing. PW-1 has deposed during cross examination that there was a large crowd in that area. But no eye witness was examined. Also, PW-1 alleges there was a pillion rider, who took him to hospital to give first aid. But the alleged pillion rider, who is also his colleague and best evidence available, and no effort was needed to trace him, was also not examined. All these show that there was no accident at all. 20. Merely because the insurance Company has not examined the driver of the vehicle, that cannot be taken as a ground of attack by the appellant as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the insurance Company, here is one case where the appellant has hatched a conspiracy to set up an accident with a known person and setup a vehicle, and silently brought the vehicle number into the case, after a long lapse of 14 days. When the Appellant was ignorant about the vehicle number while getting first aid, native treatment and later his admission in Government Hospital, it is not known how suddenly on 08.07.2002, the number was detected and included in First Information Report. Therefore, the Court below rightly observed that the whole episode is only an afterthought. 21. It is also interesting to note that the Appellant being a government servant who has taken treatment for many days, should have applied for leave. But no leave letter was produced. It was also admitted in the cross examination that he has not lost his job. He still continues in his job. It only shows that there was no permanent disability. 22. The only conclusion that could be arrived is the Motor Vehicle Inspectors Report and First Information Report were utilized only to seek compensation from Court. This is nothing but an abuse of process of law. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, usually on admission in hospital, in an accident case, intimation would be sent to the police from hospital. Even this has not been done in this case. Therefore, the appellant has not produced any materials to show that he sustained injury in the alleged accident but for his ipse dixit in the chief examination. When the initial burden of accident has not been discharged, rebuttal evidence cannot be taken into consideration. As rightly pointed out, when the owner of the vehicle remained exparte, it will not be possible for the Insurance company to let in any other evidence. Therefore, non examination of the driver by the insurance company cannot be taken as an umbrage by the appellant to seek compensation. 23. I do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.