JUDGMENT : B. Manohar, J. Appellant being the claimant has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7th June, 2014 made in MVC No. 6227/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. 2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 15-04-2012 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was proceeding on Honda Shine motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-50-H- 4188 as a pillion rider along with his friend who was riding the said motor cycle, near Anjaneya Temple, the rider of the motor cycle rode the same with a high speed, in rash and negligent manner. While avoiding the pot hole on the road, the motor cycle skidded, the claimant and his friend rider of the motorcycle fell down. The claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Harsha Hospital at Nelamangala wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 15-04-2012 to 19-04-2012. He claims that he sustained type-II compound fracture with large butterfly fracture of both bones of left leg. He further contended that he was practicing as an advocate and earning a sum of Rs. 60,000/- p.m. In view of the accidental injuries, he cannot continue his professional work, thereby he has sustained huge loss of earning. He had to appoint one attendant to take care of him in the hospital. The accident in question is caused due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle which was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Hence both the respondents are liable to compensate the claimant jointly and severally, to an extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed written statement. The first respondent denied the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, however contended that as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy w as in existence. Hence, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimant. 4. The second respondent-insurance company in the written statement denied its liability to compensate the claimant. The first respondent denied the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, however contended that as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy w as in existence. Hence, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimant. 4. The second respondent-insurance company in the written statement denied its liability to compensate the claimant. Further contended that the insured has not intimated them with regard to occurrence of the accident on 15-04-2012 and no document has been furnished with regard to the accident of the insured vehicle. Further, there is inordinate delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint. In the complaint filed before the jurisdictional police, the claimant clearly mentioned that on 15-4-2012, while he was walking on the road, the rider of a two wheeler came from behind and dashed against him, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries. After the accident, the rider of the motor cycle, without stopping the vehicle went away. Some people got him admitted to the hospital. However, in the charge sheet, the police stated that while the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in the offending motor cycle, he fell down and sustained injuries and admitted to the hospital. In the Medico Legal Register maintained in the hospital it was mentioned that injury is due to the alleged RTA, but vehicle number and manner of the accident has not been mentioned. The claimant in collusion with the first respondent and the police officials filed a false case in order to get the compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues : (i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 15-04-2012 at about 4.00 p.m. was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle Honda Shine bearing Reg.No.KA-50-H-4188. When he was proceeding near Anjaneya Temple, Nelamangala town, the rider of the said vehicle drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. While avoiding the pot-hole on the road skid the vehicle. As a result of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? (iii) What order or decree? 6. The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as RW. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex.PI to Ex.P21. As a result of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries as alleged? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, at what rate and from whom? (iii) What order or decree? 6. The claimant in order to prove his case got examined himself as RW. 1 and got marked the documents as Ex.PI to Ex.P21. The doctor who treated the claimant was examined as P.W.2 and got four documents marked as Ex.P22 to Ex.P25. Further one of the eye-witnesses of the accident was examined as P. W.3. On behalf of the second respondent, one of the legal officers was examined as R.W.1. and an authorisation letter was marked as Ex.R 1. 7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, after hearing the arguments addressed by the advocates appearing for the parties and taking into consideration spot panchanama, charge-sheet, copy of the complaint, FIR, seizure panchanama and MLC register found that the claimant has failed to prove that due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, the claimant who was travelling as a pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries near Anjaneya Temple at Nelamangala and dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. The Tribunal was of the view that the alleged accident occurred on 15-4-2012 and-immediately after the accident he was shifted to Harsha Hospital. In the Medico Legal Register it was mentioned that the injuries are due to alleged RTA, however, the vehicle number and manner of accident is not mentioned. However, a complaint has been lodged on 7-5-2012. In the complaint, the claimant has mentioned that while he was proceeding near Weaver's Colony, Nelamangala, a rider of the motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him from behind and went away without stopping the vehicle. Even in the FIR, same thing has been mentioned and FIR was filed on the very same day. However, in the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider, due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle, in order to avoid the pot holes on the road, the vehicle met with an accident. However, in the charge-sheet, it was mentioned that while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider, due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle, in order to avoid the pot holes on the road, the vehicle met with an accident. The claimant as well as the rider of the motor cycle fell down and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and the rider brought the injured person to the hospital and got him admitted. The rider is a close friend of him. However the evidence led by the claimant runs contrary to the complaint lodged by him. Further, the complaint was lodged after 22 days after the accident. The claimant is an advocate by profession. He got discharged from the hospital on 19-4-2012 and nothing prevented him to lodge a complaint immediately after discharge. Further, on the same day i.e. on 7-5-2012 re-statement was made before the Police. On the basis of the re-statement, charge-sheet was filed. Further, the person who got admitted the claimant to the hospital has not been examined. P.W.3, the alleged eye-witness in his evidence has clearly stated that he came to the spot after the accident. Hence, the evidence of P.W.3 cannot be accepted. The claimant has failed to prove the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle and accordingly, dismissed the claim petition. The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal filed this appeal. 8. Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. As on the date of accident while he was proceeding in the motor cycle as a pillion rider, the vehicle met with an accident and he fell down and sustained injuries. At the instance of some people who have gathered at the accidental spot, the claimant has stated in the complaint that while he was walking on the road, a motor cycle dashed against him from behind. At the instance of some people who have gathered at the accidental spot, the claimant has stated in the complaint that while he was walking on the road, a motor cycle dashed against him from behind. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that by wrong understanding of the insurance policy of the said motor cycle, thinking that the insurance policy is an Act policy and it does not cover the risk of the pillion rider, the claimant made a complaint before the jurisdictional police stating that while he was proceeding as a pedestrian, the rider of the motor cycle dashed against him. Subsequently, the claimant came to know that motor cycle is having comprehensive policy and it covers the risk of the pillion rider, the claimant made a re-statement on the very same day and on the basis of the said re-statement, the police have filed a charge-sheet. Further the recordings made in the FIR cannot be sacrosanct. The FIR is not a substantial evidence, non-production of the FIR has no consequence since the charge-sheet has been filed against the rider of the offending vehicle. In the absence of FIR, the claim petition can be filed. Further, though there is delay in filing the claim petition, the claimant has properly explained the delay, and it cannot be held against the claimant. A criminal case has been lodged against the rider of the motor cycle. In the said case, the rider of the motor cycle entered appearance, pleaded guilty and paid the fine to the tune of Rs. 1,700/-. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant has not proved the occurrence of the accident is contrary to law. He relied upon the judgments reported in AIR 1957 SC 366 (Nisar Ali v. State of U.P); 2013 AIR SCW 5037 (Kishan Gopal and another v. Lala and others); (2013) 10 SCC 695 : (AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 62) (Minu Rout and another v. Satya Pradyumna Mohapatra and others); 2014 ACJ 469 (Mad) (Anbazhagan v. V. Shankar). 9. On the other hand, Sri. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the claimant as well as the rider of the motor cycle are advocates by profession. They are fully aware of the legal proceedings. The complaint came to be lodged 22 days after the accident. Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued in support of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and contended that the claimant as well as the rider of the motor cycle are advocates by profession. They are fully aware of the legal proceedings. The complaint came to be lodged 22 days after the accident. The complaint lodged is contrary to the evidence and the claim petition filed by the claimant. In order to get compensation from the insurance company, in collusion with the rider-owner of the vehicle as well as the police officials, a false case has been set up and sought for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla and others); the order made in Civil Appeal No. 3171/2009 (North West Kamtaka Road Transport Corporation v. Gourabai and others); the order made in MFA No. 7025/2011 (Smt. Araihy and others v. S.M. Umesh and others) disposed of on 9th November, 2015 (Reported in 2016 AAC 656 (Kar)), the order made in MFA No. 7102/2007 disposed of on 20-09-2012 (Oriential Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Velliamma and others); 2012 (1) KCCR 260 (Vijaya Kumar v. M.B. Mallikarjuna and others); ILR 2009 Kar 3562 (Veerappa and another v. Siddappa and Another). 10. I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 11. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition filed by him? 12. In the claim petition, the claimant has contended that while he was travelling in a motor cycle as a pillion rider, the motor cycle skidded, the rider as well as the pillion rider fell down and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and rider of the motor cycle took him to the hospital. 12. In the claim petition, the claimant has contended that while he was travelling in a motor cycle as a pillion rider, the motor cycle skidded, the rider as well as the pillion rider fell down and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and rider of the motor cycle took him to the hospital. However, in the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police on 7-5-2012, at about 12.00 p.m., the claimant himself stated that while he was proceeding towards Nelamangala as a pedestnan, in front of Anjaneya Temple, the rider of a motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-50/H 4188 ridden in rash and negligent manner dashed against him from behind and ran away without stopping the vehicle. The same was mentioned in the FIR. However, on the basis of re-statement made by the claimant on the very same day to the effect that, while he was proceeding in the offending motor cycle as a pillion rider, while avoiding pot holes on the road, the motor cycle met with an accident and he sustained injuries. On the basis of the re-statement, the police filed a charge-sheet against the rider of the motor cycle. Further the rider of the motor cycle in the criminal case pleaded guilty and paid the fine. On the basis of the police records, the claimant filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The insurance company defended the case stating that a false case been set up in order to claim compensation from the insurance company. The hospital records clearly disclose that one Anand S/o. Anjinappa of Nelamangala Town got admitted the claimant to the hospital. In the Medico Legal Register, it was mentioned that the injuries are due to the alleged RTA, however, the vehicle number or manner of the accident has not been mentioned. After treatment, the claimant was discharged from the hospital on 19-4-2012. The complaint has been lodged on 7-5-2012. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR has been filed. However on the basis of re-statement said to have been made on the very same day, the police filed charge-sheet on 22-5-2012 against the rider of the motor cycle. On the very same day, Tyagaraju entered appearance in the criminal case, pleaded guilty and paid the fine. The evidence let in by the claimant runs contrary to the complaint lodged. However on the basis of re-statement said to have been made on the very same day, the police filed charge-sheet on 22-5-2012 against the rider of the motor cycle. On the very same day, Tyagaraju entered appearance in the criminal case, pleaded guilty and paid the fine. The evidence let in by the claimant runs contrary to the complaint lodged. The records clearly disclose that on the basis of the complaint lodged on 7-5-2012, FIR was sent at about 8.35 p.m. If the claimant has made any re-statement on the very same day, the contents of the re-statement ought to have been included in the FIR. That itself shows that re-statement has been made long after filing of the FIR. Further the complaint made on 7-5-2012, which was marked as Ex.P2 is in the handwriting of the claimant who was present on the said day in the police station. However, the re-statement Ex.P3 is a typed matter, whether the claimant was present in the police station at the time of making the restatement is also not made known. In order to get the compensation from the insurance company, re-statement said to have been made. The claimant in the complaint has clearly stated that unknown rider of the motor cycle dashed against him and ran away from the spot without stopping the vehicle. In the re-statement he has stated that rider of the motor cycle took him to the hospital and got him treated and he was there in the hospital till the Evening. However, in the hospital records something else has been recorded. One Anand S/o. Anjinappa of Nelamangala town brought the injured to the hospital and admitted in the hospital. At that time the injured was fully conscious, but he has not given vehicle number and also not stated about the manner of accident, whether he fell down from the motor cycle or a two wheeler dashed against him from hind side. He would have made such a statement before the doctor. In the hospital records, it was clearly mentioned that the injuries are due to alleged RTA. However in the alleged restatement, name of the rider has been mentioned stating that he took him to the hospital for treatment. Further, one of the eye-witnesses who was examined as P.W.3 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that he has not seen the accident. However in the alleged restatement, name of the rider has been mentioned stating that he took him to the hospital for treatment. Further, one of the eye-witnesses who was examined as P.W.3 in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that he has not seen the accident. After the accident, the people had gathered at the accidental spot and thereafter he went there. Hence, there is no eyewitness for the accident. 13. The contention of Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Advocate that by misunderstanding the insurance policy that the policy is an act policy, the claimant made a statement to the effect that a two wheeler dashed against him while he was walking on the road. Subsequently, after verification of the insurance policy and after coming to know that the vehicle is having comprehensive policy, he made a re-statement, cannot be acceptable. The rider as well as the pillion rider are advocates by profession. They are fully aware of the legal implications. That too, the complaint has been lodged 22 days after the accident i.e. on 7-5-2012 at about 12.00 p.m. However, no document has been produced to show that as to when the claimant made re-statement, as the FIR has been filed on the basis of the Ex.P2. The FIR does not mention anything about the re-statement. The Tribunal, taking into consideration all these aspects of the matter, taking into consideration some of the judgments of this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the claimant has failed to prove the occurrence of the accident. The judgments relied upon by Sri. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments has held that non-production of FIR has no consequences, even without the FIR, the claim petition can be filed, if the claimant is in a position to prove the occurrence of accident with other materials. Further, the delay in filing the complaint is not a fatal. If the claimant is able to show that due to compelling reasons, he could not lodge a complaint earlier to that. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 3 months in lodging the complaint. In the instant case, the claimant as well as the rider of the motor cycle are advocates by profession, they are very much aware of the legal implications. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condoned the delay of 3 months in lodging the complaint. In the instant case, the claimant as well as the rider of the motor cycle are advocates by profession, they are very much aware of the legal implications. The accident occurred on 15-4-2012 the claimant was discharged from the hospital on 19-4-2012 and the complaint was lodged on 7-5-2012. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR has been sent at about 8.35 p.m., however, on the basis of the re-state-ment made by the claimant, charge-sheet has been filed against Tyagaraju on 22-5-2012 and on the very same day, Tyagaraju pleaded guilty and paid the fine. The hospital records clearly disclose that the rider of the motor cycle did not admit the claimant to the hospital. One Anand of Nelgamangala town brought the injured to the hospital and admitted him there. Before the hospital authorities also, manner of the accident and vehicle number has not been mentioned. For the first time, in the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police, the vehicle number has been mentioned. However, the charge-sheet has been filed against the rider of the motor cycle. Except the statement of the claimant and the alleged eye-witnesses, no cogent document has been produced to show as to how the accident had occurred. For claiming compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle is sine qua non to maintain the application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the instant case, the claimant has failed to prove the occurrence of the accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, it is one of the requirement to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Premlata Shukla (2007 AIR SCW 3591) case in paragraphs 13 and 14 has held as under : "However, the factum of the an accident could also be proved from the First Information Report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an Exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 14. Once a part of it is relied upon by the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not. If the contents have beer proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise" 14. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gourabai case (supra), accepted the evidence of the doctor recording the statement made by the claimant that he had fallen from the height of 8 to 10 feet of his own house. Hence, he cannot turn round and say that the injury sustained due to the motor vehicle accident and dismissed the claim petition. The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, taking into consideration the various documents produced by the parties held that the claimant has failed to prove the occurrence of accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle. It is sine qua non for claiming the compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Premlata Shukla case (2007 AIR SCW 3591) and dismissed the claim petition. I find no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant has not made out a case to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.