JUDGMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.C. Das 1. Heard learned counsel, Mr. A. Roy Barman for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2. Brief fact is that the appellant, as claimant petitioner, presented a petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act for granting him compensation for the injury sustained by him due to a motor vehicle accident. It was inter alia stated in the claim petition that on 12.06.2001 at about 05.30 pm, the claimant-appellant after attending his office duty was returning home through B.K. Road and in front of More Company Chowmuhuni, the offending vehicle, bearing No. WNC 3990(Ambassador), belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2, being driven rashly and negligently, coming from his backside dashed his bicycle, and as a result he, with his bicycle, fell on the road and sustained multiple injuries. His right leg over knee joint was severely fractured. The people gathered there shifted him to the chamber of the eminent orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Jiban Nag and he was under constant treatment of Dr. Nag. On the following day of the accident, the Officer In-charge of East Agartala P.S. was informed about the accident by filing a petition. The appellant was under treatment for about 45 days and was on leave. Thereafter, he attended office with a hired auto-rickshaw and had to pay Rs. 1,200/- per month to the owner of the auto-rickshaw. He spent Rs. 25,000/- for the purpose of treatment and was supposed to spend further money for complete recovery. He claimed compensation of Rs. 4,75,000/- in all. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, on receipt of notice did not turn up. As a result, hearing of the case was directed ex parte by learned Tribunal. Respondent No. 3, the New India Assurance Company, submitted written statement denying all the averments made in the claim petition. 4. Learned Tribunal, considering the pleadings, in course of trial, framed the following issues. (i) Whether the claimant-petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 12-06-2001 at about 5-30 p.m. near 'More Company Chowmohani' in between Rajdhani Hotel and Women's College on B.K. Road under East Agartala Police Station due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle NO.WNC-3990(Ambassador)? (ii) Is the claimant-petitioner entitled to get any compensation? (iii) If so, what should be the amount and who is liable to pay the compensation 5. (ii) Is the claimant-petitioner entitled to get any compensation? (iii) If so, what should be the amount and who is liable to pay the compensation 5. In course of trial, claimant-appellant examined himself as PW.1 and also examined another witness Sri Ajit Kr. Ghosh, as PW.2, the owner of the auto-rickshaw, which was hired by the claimant-appellant. 6. Learned Tribunal considering the evidence on record held that the claimant-appellant failed to prove his case since no police case was registered and no investigation was done about the accident. 7. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman emphatically submitted that the claimant-appellant approached the Tribunal with a most genuine case. He informed the police on the following day of the accident and that was received by the police but no formal case was registered and investigated. The respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner of the vehicle, though, were summoned and appeared by filing Vokalatnama but ultimately, did not submit any written statement to challenge the claim of the petitioner, and therefore, learned Tribunal was absolutely wrong in rejecting the case of the claimant-appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the claimant-appellant submitted documents of treatment and the receipts of payment to PW.2 for hiring of the auto-rickshaw. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman, therefore, prayed for adequate compensation. 8. I agree with the submission of learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that a police case was not a sine qua non for granting or rejecting a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It was not necessarily that a claim case should be rejected unless an FIR was lodged and the accident was investigated by the police. A claim case should be decided on the basis of the evidence and materials produced before the Tribunal irrespective of the fact that a police case was registered or not. I cannot agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that since no police case was registered the claimant-appellant was not entitled to get compensation. 9. On perusal of the claim petition, I find that the claimant-appellant mentioned the number of the offending vehicle as WMC 3990(Ambassador), involved in the accident, and the issues were framed also mentioning that number of the vehicle but the claimant-appellant in his deposition before the Tribunal stated that number of the vehicle should be 3980, and the vehicle number, he mentioned in the FIR, was actually wrong. What the claimant-appellant has stated in his deposition was not inconformity with his pleadings stated in the claim petition. While the claimant-appellant mentioned number of a particular vehicle in the claim petition, and he did not amend the petition after he came to know that the number of the vehicle was, otherwise, then what once mentioned in the claim petition, it was the duty of the claimant to amend the claim petition. Under such circumstances, while the petitioner himself was in fault, at this stage such fault cannot be cured and the petitioner's case cannot be entertained for granting compensation. The appellant must come before with the Tribunal with clean hand and where the claimant-appellant himself was at fault, the appellate Court has no scope to grant any relief. 10. The appeal accordingly stands dismissed. Send back the L.C. records along with a copy of the judgment and order. Appeal dismissed