JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 27-6-2012 passed by MACT, Beawar, District Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,25,799/- in favour of claimant-respondent with interest @ 6% from 7-2-2011 till the amount is actually realised. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 3-10-2010, claimant was going on motor cycle No. RJ-36-SA-6746 to take petrol at Udaipur road Chungi Naka at about 10.15 p.m. From opposite side a motor cycle No. RJ-36-SC-5891 being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came and hit the claimant, as a result of which the claimant sustained injuries. After six days, the FIR was lodged and claim petition was filed. Notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted by both the parties. Thereafter the Tribunal passed the award of Rs. 1,25,799/-, as mentioned hereinabove. 3. Against the said judgment and award dated 27-6-2012 passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has submitted the appeal. 4. Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the award dated 27-6-2012 passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse, contrary to the facts and material on record. He has further contended that the Tribunal has also not considered the material evidence and committed serious illegality in allowing the claim petition because the insured vehicle is falsely involved in this case. The FIR was lodged on 9-10-2010, while the occurrence took place on 3-10-2010 and there is no explanation given by the claimant as to why he has lodged the FIR after the delay of 6 days. The medical report which has been prepared by the Doctor concerned does not help the claim of the claimant. He has further contended that the claimant himself has stated in examination that he was going on the motor cycle with his companion Jai Singh, but Jai Singh has not been produced by the claimant in witness box as eye-witness. He has further contended that the Tribunal has committed serious illegality in allowing the claim petition because the insured vehicle is falsely involved in the case. The accident allegedly occurred on 3-10-2010, whereas the FIR is lodged on 9-10-2010. The claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Beawar and in his admission ticket (Ex. NA-1 dated 4-10-2010), it is mentioned that the claimant sustained injuries due to fall from the motor cycle. The accident allegedly occurred on 3-10-2010, whereas the FIR is lodged on 9-10-2010. The claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Beawar and in his admission ticket (Ex. NA-1 dated 4-10-2010), it is mentioned that the claimant sustained injuries due to fall from the motor cycle. If the claimant sustained injuries in the accident, then certainly in his admission ticket the cause of injuries could have been mentioned of accident. If the claimant could have sustained injuries in the accident, the hospital should have informed the police and there should be preparation of MLR on that day. In this case, the MLR is prepared on 12-10-2010. The claimant has stated in his examination-in-chief that he was going on the motor cycle with the companion Jai Singh, but Jai Singh is not produced by the claimant in witness box as eye-witness. The claimant admits in his cross-examination that in Ex. NA-1 (Admission Ticket), it is mentioned that he fell down from the motor-cycle. The claimant has not explained the delay of 6 days in lodging the FIR. The FIR could have been lodged by his companion Jai Singh or his family members or by the Hospital where he was taken for treatment of injuries sustained in the alleged accident. In such circumstances, it is clear that the vehicle in question is falsely involved in the alleged accident. Learned counsel has further contended that the whole claim passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the provisions of law. Hence, the award dated 27-6-2012 be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the impugned award. 6. This Court does not want to issue the notices in this matter because it is very petty matter. 7. It is surprised to hear this argument on behalf of the Insurance Company that the claim is absolutely false and forged and fabricated. 8. When this Court asked a question to Mr. Tripurari Sharma appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company whether the appellant-Insurance Company moved any application before the Tribunal under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, he replied that the appellant - Insurance Company has not moved any application under Section 340, Cr. P.C. regarding false, fabricated and concocted claim. 9. For ready reference, Section 340, Cr. P.C. is reproduced as under:- "340. P.C. regarding false, fabricated and concocted claim. 9. For ready reference, Section 340, Cr. P.C. is reproduced as under:- "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195.- (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary. a) record a finding to that effect; b) make a complaint thereof in writing; c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. 2. The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed:- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; ((b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.) 4. In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195." 10. In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195." 10. It seems that in almost all the cases, the Insurance Company files the appeal before the High Court and takes the stand that the false and fabricated claim petition has been submitted by the claimants and also the insured vehicle is falsely involved in the case as mentioned by the appellant in ground No. (C) of the grounds and in other paragraphs also. Meaning thereby, the Insurance Company wants to say that the false claims are submitted by the claimants. In the same, stereo-type manner, learned Advocate Mr. Tripurari Sharma has contended that the insured vehicle has been falsely involved in this matter. 11. Ordinarily, such type of language or ground should not be used by the Insurance Company because the Tribunal, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and due appreciation of evidence, passes the award. If the Insurance Company thinks it fit that the claim is false, fabricated, concocted, then in such type of cases, the Insurance Company should have moved an application under the provisions of Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, relating to the offences affecting the administration of justice, as envisaged under Chapter XXVI at the appropriate stage of the trial or before filing the written statement of defence, but since no such application is found to have been filed in the instant case by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal, the plea of Mr. Tripurari Sharma, learned counsel for the Insurance Company is not tenable in law and the same is out rightly rejected. 12. The Tribunal is found to have passed the award in detail after framing four issues, discussing them elaborately and recording the evidence submitted by both the parties. The learned Tribunal decreed the amount of Rs. 1,25,799/- in favour of claimant-respondent, as mentioned hereinabove. 13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think it proper to issue notice to the respondents and I find no ground to interfere in the impugned award dated 27-6-2012 passed by the learned Tribunal. Hence the civil misc. appeal filed by the Insurance Company being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 14. Consequent upon the dismissal of misc. appeal, the stay application, filed herewith does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed *******