Judgment : 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl Sub-Judge), Pondicherry, in and by award dated 28.03.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.683 of 2006, that the victim had sustained injuries only due to the accident caused by the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019 insured with the appellant herein/Insurance Company. 2. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. It is the case of the claimant that on 23.11.2005 at about 10.20 hours, while he was riding his two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-Z-7458, at College Road, Lawspet, Near Kalpana Bakery, slowly by keeping to the extreme left side of the road, another two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019 owned by the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein/Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner being driven by one Gigan Lourdenadian S/o.Gigan Iroudayanadin, and dashed against the two-wheeler, in which the claimant was proceeding and thereby, caused the accident. In the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture of skull and lacerated wound over temporal and parietal region. Immediately, he was taken to Jipmer Hospital and then, referred to Government Hospital Pondicherry, wherein he was admitted and was taking treatment. Hence, he made a claim for compensation of Rs.7 lakhs, for the injuries sustained by him in the accident, as against the owner of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019 and its insurer/appellant herein. 3. The claim made by the claimant was resisted by the Insurance Company by denying the involvement of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019, insured with them. It is the specific defence of the Insurance Company that the claimant had sustained injuries on 23.11.2005 when he had slipped and fallen down from his two-wheeler, since the road was slippery at that time due to heavy rain. According to the Insurance Company, the owner of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019, the rider of the said vehicle, Motor Vehicles Inspector and the Police had all connived together with the claimant in raising the false claim. The First Information Report was registered with a delay of three days and the said delay has not been properly explained. Since the claimant himself is a tort-feasor, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Thus, the Insurance Company opposed the claim of the claimant. 4. The First Information Report was registered with a delay of three days and the said delay has not been properly explained. Since the claimant himself is a tort-feasor, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. Thus, the Insurance Company opposed the claim of the claimant. 4. In order to prove the claim, on the said of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1, besides examining one Dr.Snethil as P.W.2 and marked seventeen documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. On the side of the Insurance Company, one Dr.Kanagarathinam was examined as R.W.1 and two documents were marked as Ex.R.1 & Ex.R.2. 5. After analysing the entire evidence adduced on either side, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019 and has fixed the liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. 6. It is the main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that it is totally a false claim made by the claimant by taking advantage of the injuries sustained by him due to a fall from his two-wheeler on account of his own negligence. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company invited the attention of this Court to Ex.R.1-Medicolegal Examination Report (Wound Certificate) and submitted that at the time of getting admitted in the Jipmer hospital, Pondicherry, the claimant had informed the hospital authorities that he had sustained the injuries since he had slipped and fallen down from his two-wheeler due to slippery condition of the road as there was heavy rain at that time. In order to prove the same, on the side of the Insurance Company, one Dr.Kanagarathinam has been examined as R.W.1. R.W.1-Doctor has clearly stated in his evidence that at the time of admission in the hospital, the claimant had informed the hospital authorities that he had fallen down from his two-wheeler due to slippery condition of the road. Further, though the claimant has claimed that after getting discharged from the Jipmer Hospital, he took treatment from the Government Hospital at Pondicherry, absolutely there is no documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal to show that he took treatment in the Government Hospital at Pondicherry. Further, though the claimant has claimed that after getting discharged from the Jipmer Hospital, he took treatment from the Government Hospital at Pondicherry, absolutely there is no documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal to show that he took treatment in the Government Hospital at Pondicherry. It is clear that after three days, by setting up the present two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019, the claim petition has been filed filed by the claimant. Thus, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition by setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that delay of three days in lodging the FIR cannot be said to be an inordinate delay. In fact, the claimant in his evidence, as P.W.1, has clearly stated that he did not aware of the entries made in the Medicolegal Examination Report and the said entries may be made due to the wrong information given by the person, who brought him to the hospital. Further, FIR has been registered by the Police only as against the rider of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019 and therefore, no infirmity could be could be found with the award passed by the Tribunal. 8. Keeping the submissions made on either side, I have carefully perused the materials available on record. 9. It is the specific defence of the appellant/Insurance Company that the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019, insured with them, did not involve in the accident and the accident had occurred only due to the own negligence of the claimant. According to the Insurance Company, the claimant had slipped and fallen down from his two-wheeler due to slippery condition of the road as there was heavy rain at that time. In fact, the claimant himself has informed before the hospital authorities at the time of getting admitted in the hospital that he had fallen down from the vehicle due to slippery condition of the road. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has also invited the attention of this Court to the Medicolegal Examination Report, marked as Ex.R.1, wherein it has been mentioned that due to rain, the claimant had slipped and fallen down from his two-wheeler while riding it. 10. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company has also invited the attention of this Court to the Medicolegal Examination Report, marked as Ex.R.1, wherein it has been mentioned that due to rain, the claimant had slipped and fallen down from his two-wheeler while riding it. 10. On the side of the Insurance Company, one Dr.Kanagarathinam has been examined as R.W.1 and he has stated in his evidence that the claimant was brought by a person to the hospital at 10.20 am and the claimant had informed the hospital authorities that he had fallen from his two-wheeler due to slippery condition of the road and sustained injuries. Even in the cross-examination of R.W.1, he has asserted the said statement. 11. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that after getting discharged from the Jipmer Hospital, the claimant took treatment in the Government Hospital at Pondicherry, absolutely there is no documentary evidence produced before the Tribunal to show that he took treatment in the Government Hospital at Pondicherry. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimant has not established his case that he had sustained injury in the accident only due to the rash and negligent driving of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019, insured with the appellant herein/Insurance Company by producing tangible evidence. 12. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the claimant that the Police, on investigation, has registered FIR as against the rider of the two-wheeler bearing Registration No.PY-01-AA-3019 only, which is owned by the 2nd respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein/Insurance Company. But, it is well settled legal principle that the criminal proceedings in respect of an accident have no bearing on the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Before the Tribunal, the claimant ought to have established his case by examining independent witnesses, especially when the Insurance Company denies the involvement of the vehicle. In the instant case, the Insurance Company, by examining a Doctor of the Jipmer Hospital viz., Dr.Kanagarathinam as R.W.1, has established their case that the claimant had sustained injuries due to his own negligence. But, the Tribunal has passed the award based on the FIR registered by the Police as against the rider of the vehicle. In the instant case, the Insurance Company, by examining a Doctor of the Jipmer Hospital viz., Dr.Kanagarathinam as R.W.1, has established their case that the claimant had sustained injuries due to his own negligence. But, the Tribunal has passed the award based on the FIR registered by the Police as against the rider of the vehicle. In my opinion, in the absence of any independent witness to corroborate the case of the claimant and in the absence of any medical records from the Government Hospital at Pondicherry, wherein, according to the claimant, he took treatment, after getting discharged from the Jipmer Hospital, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition, since the involvement of the vehicle was not properly established by the claimant, I am of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs.