JUDGMENT : The 1st respondent – Insurance Company in M.V.C. 5265/2009 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning Judgment and Award dated 24.05.2010 passed therein. 2. Brief facts of the case in this appeal are as under : Claimant Ramesh D., a Police Constable in MICO Layout Police Station said to have met with an accident on 21.06.2009 at about 4.20 p.m. on BTM 100 Feet Road, 16th Main Junction, Bengaluru resulting in injuries to his knee, (which is referred to as IDK injury to knee as stated in wound certificate Ex.P5). According to him on 21.06.2009 he was on duty between 2.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m. at the junction of 16th Main Road on BTM Main Road. At about 3.45 he took permission of Rame Gowda, ASI to go to Police Station for changing the battery of his wireless hand set. While coming back to the place of his duty passing through 100 feet ring road and while approaching junction of 16th Main Road on his motor cycle bearing No. KA-05/EW-7457 at about 4.20 p.m. he was hit by a Maruthi Car bearing Registration No. KA-04/MC-520 which came from the right side of his vehicle to take left turn in front of his vehicle without showing indication as required. In the process the driver of Maruthi Car caused accident, resulting in injury to his leg. He informed this accident to ASI – Rame Gowda, went to Jayanagar Orthopedics Hospital for treatment, there after went home. Since the bones of right leg was causing unbearable pain he got admitted to St. John's Hospital, got MRI scan done. Thereafter proceeded to Police Station on 25.06.2009 and lodged a complaint against Driver of Maruthi Car at about 6.00 P.M. 3. On his complaint Police initiated proceedings to conduct mahazar of the place of accident and thereafter filed charge sheet against the owner of aforesaid Maruti Car for the offence under Section 279, 338 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the aforesaid injuries. In the said proceedings, summons was duly served on the respondent – insurer of Car bearing Regn. No. KA-04/MC-520 which is said to have caused the accident and also the RC owner of the said Car. Subsequently, claim petition was filed by him seeking compensation for the aforesaid injuries. In the said proceedings, summons was duly served on the respondent – insurer of Car bearing Regn. No. KA-04/MC-520 which is said to have caused the accident and also the RC owner of the said Car. The 1st respondent -insurer of the car appeared before the Tribunal, filed statement of objections denying the accident and other averments of claim petition. In so far as 2nd respondent – insured is concerned, though he was duly served remained exparte in the proceedings before the Tribunal. 4. After issues are framed, claimant examined himself as PW1, produced and marked in all 16 documents in support of his claim which are marked as Ex.P1 to P16. In addition to that Dr. B.K. Sudhakanth, a Doctor from Hosmat Hospital was also examined as PW-2. The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,07,870/-payable with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till depositing the entire amount and saddled the liability to pay compensation jointly and severally on the insured and insurer. 5. Being aggrieved by the same the 1st respondent before the Tribunal has come up in this appeal contending that the entire proceedings before the Tribunal is fraudulent claim. The claimant who is a Police Constable misusing his office has falsely got the documents created, forged and fabricated to secure compensation from the 1st respondent – Insurance Company before the Tribunal. To substantiate the same, appellant herein has relied upon the documents which are produced and marked by the claimant in support of his case. The first of which is Ex.P1 – FIR. Admittedly, the FIR – Ex.P1 is filed on 25.06.2009 at about 6.00 P.M. If it is closely looked into, though it is stated that it was lodged on 26.06.2009 at about 6.00 P.M., later, it is corrected as 25.06.2009 as could be seen from page 4 of Ex.P1. In that document it is also stated that on 21.06.2009 at about 4.20 p.m., the claimant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti Car bearing No. KA-04/MC-520 belonging to 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and insured with 1st respondent. 6. In that document it is also stated that on 21.06.2009 at about 4.20 p.m., the claimant met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Maruti Car bearing No. KA-04/MC-520 belonging to 2nd respondent before the Tribunal and insured with 1st respondent. 6. In the said complaint, he states that he has suffered injury to his right leg, for which he went and took initial treatment at Jayanagar Orthopedic Hospital and thereafter for further treatment he went to St. John's Hospital and got MRI scan done and subsequently came to Police Station on 25.06.2009. The mahazar which is stated to have drawn on the same day is witnessed by the claimant-injured and another Alam, which is commenced at 6.45 p.m. and concluded at 7.30 p.m., wherein the statement made in complaint which is attached to FIR vide Ex.P1 is reiterated. Based on that sketch is also prepared, in addition to these documents he has also relied upon the wound certificate said to have issued by Jayanagar Orthopedic Centre which is undated wound certificate. It does not say the nature of injury except stating that it is IDK at knee and grievous injury. The grievous injury is in handwriting, whereas references to other details are computerised print out. It is seen that the said document is not issued on the very same day, it is sent to Police Station where the claimant is working as Constable on 24.07.2009 and received in that office on the very same day. 7. In support of his injury, he also relied upon the records of Hosmat Hospital where he has stated that he got admitted on 30th July 2009 and got treated for a period of four (4) days. But interestingly, the contents of the said document is totally contrary to the contents in the complaint, FIR and also the facts stated in Ex.P5 – wound certificate issued by Jayanagar Orthopedics Centre. But interestingly, the contents of the said document is totally contrary to the contents in the complaint, FIR and also the facts stated in Ex.P5 – wound certificate issued by Jayanagar Orthopedics Centre. In the discharge summary of Hosmat Hospital – Ex.P6 it is stated that claimant got admitted to the said Hospital on 30th July with the history of road traffic accident occurred on 26.06.2009 near BTM Layout around 9.15 P.M. sustained injury to right knee and he was complaining of pain, swelling and instability of right knee since 26.06.2009 and on examination the result shows that right knee swelling was present, joint line tenderness present, anterior drawer present and it also states that investigation reports are enclosed to that. 8. In addition to that, he has produced and marked the charge sheet which is at Ex.P7, his salary certificate is at Ex.P8 and also the records of the Hosmat Hospital is at Ex.P9 that includes a bunch of papers and two files (1) Inpatient Record with inpatient No. 49178, date of admission as 30.07.2009 with name of the Consultant as Dr. TAC having several documents included in that, one of which is discharge summary which is separately marked as Ex.P6 referring to the history of accident in the said documents. On reading entire record pertaining to treatment provided to the claimant in Hosmat Hospital speak of his suffering injury in a road traffic accident on 26.06.2009 at about 9.15 p.m. near BTM Layout. However, there appears to be an insertion of one more page wherein it is stated that the cause of the accident is RTA on Sunday due to skid and fall from bike near BTM Layout on 21.06.2009 which is in handwritten and subsequently there is yet another document which is in respect of yet another file. It is in respect of treatment said to have been given to him as outpatient. Again, which contains another version showing that the RTA has taken place on 21.06.2009 at about 4.15 p.m. treating initially at Jayanagar Orthopaedic Center and MRI done on 21.06.2009, the date from which file commences is 28.06.2009 by the Doctor HOOD. One thing which is to be seen in all the aforesaid documents, cause for the injury is skid and fall from the scooter. Nowhere it is referred to as the accident involving the motor cycle of claimant and Maruthi Car. One thing which is to be seen in all the aforesaid documents, cause for the injury is skid and fall from the scooter. Nowhere it is referred to as the accident involving the motor cycle of claimant and Maruthi Car. In the entire proceedings before the Tribunal only one X-ray is produced which was taken on 31.07.2009 in Hosmat Hospital. 9. It is the case of appellant that when all these discrepancies in the documents are glaring at the face of the Tribunal, the same are ignored, the Tribunal accept the averments in the claim petition and statement in oral evidence though it is contrary to documents on record does not supports the case of the claimants. The Tribunal has proceeded to erroneously allow the claim petition and awarded compensation. 10. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and respondents. Sri. Shripad V. Shastri, learned Counsel for the appellant to substantiate the finding of the Tribunal relied on series of judgments rendered by this Court and also Apex Court contending that in any claim petition the police documents are not important, the discrepancies if any in the police documents will have to be ignored and they should not be put to serious test, on touchstone of preponderance of probability, standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. The lacunas in the documents should be ignored and the averments made in the claim petition as well as the evidence should be accepted as gospel truth. In all claim petitions compensation should be awarded for the reasons that ultimately the provisions governing award of compensation to accident victims is to provide respite for the suffering they have undergone. The law governing compensation proceedings being social legislation, the same should not be used to harass the victims of road accident. The application of strict rules of evidence and procedure would only hinder the fair chance of victims getting rightful compensation at the hands of the Tribunal. In support of this, he relies on the following judgments : (a) ILR 1996 KAR 161 in the matter of Meenakshamma Vs. Hanumanthappa ; Reliance is placed on this to demonstrate that the claim petition is a summary proceedings wherein the claimant is required to prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by independent evidence. In support of this, he relies on the following judgments : (a) ILR 1996 KAR 161 in the matter of Meenakshamma Vs. Hanumanthappa ; Reliance is placed on this to demonstrate that the claim petition is a summary proceedings wherein the claimant is required to prove rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by independent evidence. Hence, non-registration of a police case regarding the accident does not give rise to any adverse inference that no such motor accident occurred. This judgment was relied upon by respondent No.1 to substantiate that even assuming that there is discrepancies regarding date of accident in the complaint, FIR, the same is required to be accepted based on the statement made by the claimant in his evidence. (b). The second judgment relied upon is in the matter of Bimal Devi and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and others reported in 2009 AIR SCW 4298 to substantiate that strict proof of evidence – not possible to be given by claimants – claimants have to establish their case merely on touchstone of preponderance of probability – standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not be applied. This judgment is relied upon to substantiate to get over the discrepancies regarding date of accident in so far it pertains to stating in one place as 21.06.2009 at 4.15 p.m. and in other place as 26.06.2009 at about 9.15 p.m. and the reasons for fall being different. The documents shows it is due to motor accident involving four wheeler. As could be seen from Ex.P5 – undated wound certificate is fall from the scooter in the records maintained by the Hosmat Hospital which are totally contradictory to each other so far as the date of accident and also the manner in which the accident has taken place is sought to be ignored by relying upon this judgment and also following judgments rendered by the Apex Court. (c) Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 241; (d) Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 270; (e) Saroj and others Vs. Het Lal and others reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 129 11. (c) Parmeshwari Vs. Amir Chand and others reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 241; (d) Ravi Vs. Badrinarayan and others reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 270; (e) Saroj and others Vs. Het Lal and others reported in 2011 SAR (Civil) 129 11. Another line of the argument is to the effect that assuming for a moment the charge sheet filed is false, nothing prevented the Insurance Company from filing a complaint seeking quashing of the said charge sheet instead of proceeding to contest the same accepting the said charge sheet and when once the Insurance Company has accepted the said charge sheet, question of denying the accident does not arise. This argument was canvased by the Counsel relying upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Smt. Lakshmamma and others, which was disposed of on 25th September 2007. 12. On appreciating the rival contentions with reference to the judgments cited as above and also reverting back to the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that those judgments would not enure to the benefit of the claimant in any manner in the present case. Admittedly, the claimant is a Police Constable. It is his case that he met with an accident on 26.06.2009 at about 4.15 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of car belonging to 2nd respondent before the Tribunal. It is also his case that he got treated in the Jayanagar Orthopedics Centre initially on the same day and took treatment in St. John's Hospital. On appreciating the entire documents which are before the Court, there is no reference as to his treatment in St. John's Hospital, Bangalore and MRI scan being conducted on 21.06.2009. It is seen that the complaint is lodged on 25.06.2009 as rightly pointed out by the Counsel appearing for the appellant, The complaint though it is dated 25.06.2009 initially it is received on 26.06.2009 and thereafter corrected as 25.06.2009. This aspect has to be seen with reference to other documents of Hosmat Hospital, wherein all the documents which are generated at an undisputed point of time. In document dated 30.07.2009 the claimant himself has stated that he met with an accident on 26.06.2009 at about 9.15 p.m. due to fall from the bike. Whereas, the handwritten document in that bunch of documents differ from others. In document dated 30.07.2009 the claimant himself has stated that he met with an accident on 26.06.2009 at about 9.15 p.m. due to fall from the bike. Whereas, the handwritten document in that bunch of documents differ from others. In some document it is mentioned that the date of accident is 21.06.2009, in some it is mentioned as 26.06.2009. Even regarding time it is stated as 9.15 p.m. in some document and in another as 4.15 p.m. The claimant has failed to state actually when he met with an accident and on what date, what time. Series of contradictory documents are produced and relied upon. Surprisingly, the Station House Officer who has received the complaint from one of his own staff has conveniently not bothered to look into any of those documents has mechanically filed FIR, proceed to prepare the spot mahazar as if it was conducted between 6.45 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. on same day and based on that prepared the charge sheet against the owner of the alleged offending vehicle Car. 13. The contention of the Counsel appearing for the claimant that these documents should be ignored for the reasons that the claimant is seeking compensation under MV Act which is a piece of social legislature where interest of the claimant should be paramount. It is difficult to accept said argument when fraudulent act committed by the claimant is clearly glaring at the face of this Court. It is difficult to accept the same relying upon judgments where the facts and circumstances are different which prompted the Division Bench of this Court and Apex Court to ignore the delay in filing the FIR and minor discrepancy in said documents. Relying upon the circumstances and facts of the said judgment and applying that to the facts of the case on hand, would be out of context since the facts in the said judgment are totally contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case herein. In fact, every case will have to be dealt on its merit since each proceedings will be separate and distinct. There is nothing like uniform set of fact which could be seen in two separate claims. In fact, every case will have to be dealt on its merit since each proceedings will be separate and distinct. There is nothing like uniform set of fact which could be seen in two separate claims. If a Court comes to a conclusion that lodging of FIR in a particular case belatedly should not be viewed seriously for the reasons stated in the said proceedings, the same would not by itself form as guideline to all other cases for the Court to ignore the fraudulent acts committed by the parties. If there are any bonafide reasons to accept the lodging of complaint belatedly in genuine case the Court in exercising its discretion should consider the same. 14. In the evidence, it is stated regarding MRI Scan of claimant being taken on more than three occasions in Apollo Hospital, St. John's Hospital and also Hosmat Hospital. Unfortunately, those documents are not produced and marked in this proceedings. Assuming for a moment the oral evidence of claimant were to be true, why he felt shy in producing the same in Court below. Assuming for a moment he has suffered injuries as stated in the complaint, which has resulted in swelling and discomfort to him, what was the reason which made him to wait from 21.06.2009 till 30.07.2009 to get himself admitted in the hospital. In fact, in the evidence of PW-2 – Doctor who is said to have given treatment to claimant goes on a record to say that there is no mention in the records regarding initial treatment taken by the claimant before coming to Hosmat Hospital on 30th July 2009, that needs to be believed that the claimant has taken treatment for the said injuries on 21st June 2009 and not on 31.07.2009 is not explained in his evidence or in the evidence of PW-2 – Doctor who is said to have treated him. 15. 15. The meticulous reading of entire evidence available on record clearly shows that the entire proceedings reeks of fraud and manipulation, misrepresentation, suppression of facts and also forging of documents to suit the requirement of the claimant inasmuch as one of the witness who has given evidence on behalf of 1st respondent – Insurance Company i.e. RW-1 – M. Venu, Claims Analyst come to the extent of denying the documents produced by himself and also report submitted by himself and is anxious to support the case of the claimant in stating that the claimant has taken treatment in St. John's Hospital, Bangalore, Apollo Hospital, Rajashekhar Hospital and in several other places, shamelessly he would disown the documents which are secured and produced by him in support of denial of claim by the Insurance Company. This conduct of claimant would only strengthen the understanding of this court regarding the magnitude of fraud, which is in practice, in the claim filed. In their anxiety to succeed in their claim they twist the findings of the Apex Court rendered under a particular set of facts, regarding importance of criminal documents, by referring it out of context to demonstrate before this Court and the Trial Court that the Police documents in criminal case is absolutely of no importance to the proceedings before the Tribunal for seeking claim and also try to demonstrate before the Court that all that the claimant is required to demonstrate before the Tribunal is, he has met with an accident and suffered injuries. According to him to substantiate the same he need not secure any documents if there is any lacuna for none production of the documents as seen in the present case. The claimant would contend that it is the responsibility of the Insurance Company to secure all those documents and to demonstrate before the Court for they are fraudulent documents. This extreme line of arguments by the Counsel for the appellant is shocking. In this proceedings the claimant having shamelessly resorted to creating, manipulating documents, need to substantiate the same. The learned counsel for claimant vehemently argued before this Court that the claimant is justified in making claim based on those fraudulent and concocted documents. If such documents are allowed and if such kind of false and frivolous litigation for seeking compensation for motor vehicle accident, it would open flood gates for false claims, which cannot be entertained. The learned counsel for claimant vehemently argued before this Court that the claimant is justified in making claim based on those fraudulent and concocted documents. If such documents are allowed and if such kind of false and frivolous litigation for seeking compensation for motor vehicle accident, it would open flood gates for false claims, which cannot be entertained. The false and frivolous claims should be nipped in the bud by making it clear that the Courts do not accept all and sundry fraudulent and concocted documents thrown at its face. In the background of the aforesaid observations with reference to the oral and documentary evidence available in the case on hand, this court has no hesitation to hold that it is yet another fraudulent case launched by a person in authority, misusing his office and trying to influence not only the Doctors who had created the documents to suit his requirements and also the officer of the Insurance Company who has gone back on their own statement and there own documents and meekly submit themselves to the whims and fancies of the claimant. 16. In that view of the matter, while allowing this appeal filed by the Insurance Company, the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent – claimant is dismissed and cost of Rs.10,000/-is imposed on the 1st respondent – claimant to be deposited before the Tribunal within four weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment. If the same is not paid within the said period, the Registry shall initiate appropriate proceedings for recovering the amount from the said officer by issuing notice to him through his employer – the Inspector General of Police, Karnataka. 17. With this observation, the appeal is allowed. A copy of this Judgment is also marked to the Inspector General of Police for his information to make necessary arrangements to see that the cost is recovered from the salary of the 1st respondent – claimant and the same is deposited with this Court by way of fine for indulging in such a fraudulent activities. 18. In that view of the matter, the amount if any deposited by the Insurance Company is ordered to be released in favour of the appellant – Insurance Company.