JUDGMENT 1. - Ram Singh, the claimant-appellant, is aggrieved by the award dated 11.8.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track), Kotputali, Jaipur whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by him. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.2.2001, the claimant, Ram Singh, was standing near Kotputali Bus Stand. According to him, suddenly a Motorcycle, bearing registration No.HR-34A-1236, being driven rashly and negligently, came and hit him. Consequently, he sustained certain injuries. Therefore, he filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself and another witness, Rakesh, and submitted thirteen documents. On the other hand, the insurance company neither examined any person, nor submitted any document. However, after having gone through the oral and documentary evidence, by award dated 11.8.2006, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Hence, this appeal before this court. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions before this court: firstly, mere delay of five days in lodging the FIR is not such an inordinate delay so as to persuade the learned Tribunal to dismiss the claim petition. Secondly, the documents submitted by the claimant-appellant reveal that he had suffered injuries due to a vehicular accident. Lastly, the Tribunal was not justified in imposing a cost of Rs. 5,000/- upon the appellant. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, insurance company, has contended that the appellant did not offer any explanation for the delay of five days in lodging the FIR. Secondly, the learned Tribunal has meticulously examined the entire evidence adduced before it. The appellant's testimony was not corroborated by other witness, namely Rakesh (A.W. 2). In fact, both the testimonies are contradictory to each other. Lastly, the Tribunal was justified in imposing the cost as its valuable time has been wasted by the appellant. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned award clearly reveals that according to the appellant, immediately after he sustained the injuries, he was hospitalized. Moreover, he claimed that he had been treated at Navdeep Private Hospital. However, he has failed to submit any documentary evidence corroborating the said averment. Moreover, in his testimony he has not given any explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. Moreover, he claimed that he had been treated at Navdeep Private Hospital. However, he has failed to submit any documentary evidence corroborating the said averment. Moreover, in his testimony he has not given any explanation for the delay in lodging of the FIR. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in concluding that there was no cogent reason for lodging the FIR after a delay of five days. 7. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has noticed the fact that according to Ramesh (A.W. 2), he claimed that he had taken the appellant to the hospital and had given in writing about the accident to the police on that very day. However, no such document was produced before the Tribunal during the proceedings. Thus, the Tribunal has noticed the fact that the testimony of Rakesh (A.W. 2) is at variance with, if not contradictory to the testimony of the appellant. Thus, Ramesh has not corroborated the appellant's testimony. 8. Moreover, the learned Tribunal has also noticed the fact that although the appellant claimed to be a mechanic, but he could not inform the Tribunal with regard to exact nature of his work. Considering all these circumstances, in a holistic manner, the learned Tribunal has concluded that a false claim petition has been filed before it. 9. A litigant is expected to approach any judicial forum with clean hands. Those who approach the judicial forum with an oblique motive deserve to be penalised for having wasted valuable time of the forum. Since the appellant had filed a false claim, obviously, the precious time of the Tribunal was wasted. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in imposing a cost on the appellant. 10. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the award dated 11.8.2006. This appeal being devoid of merit is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******