JUDGMENT : N.K. SUDHINDRARAO, J. 1. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, appeal is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is preferred against dismissal of the claim petition under Motor Vehicles Act passed in MVC No. 1213/2012 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT-VII, Shivamogga, by its judgment and award dated 15-4-2014. 3. To avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties will be hereafter referred to their respective ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are served and unrepresented, however, respondent No.3 is represented by its learned counsel. 5. Perused Lower Court records and heard learned counsel learned counsel for the parties. 6. Relevant facts; the reason for initiating the proceedings in MVC is claim by the appellant/petitioner that an accident occurred on 28-6-2012 at Bikkonahalli village, Shivamogga Taluk, when the petitioner was said to have been waiting at the bus-stop, respondent No. 1 drove the motor vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-14-EC-2718 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner, due to which the petitioner sustained injuries to shaft of right femur, fracture of neck of right femur and other grievous injuries. The petitioner is said to have been treated at Government Mac. Gann Hospital, Shivamogga, thereafter Ven-Lock Hospital, Mangaluru, later shifted to Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Manipal, where he underwent surgery incurring expenditure of Rs. 60,000/- Criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is also stated that after discharge from the hospital, the petitioner lodged a complaint against the rider of the vehicle. Final report is said to have been filed in the case. 7. Petitioner claims that he was examined by doctor on 28-6-2012 and the doctor has observed as stated above regarding the history or cause of injury. While deposing before the Tribunal, the doctor states, about the injuries sustained by the petitioner. He also states that the permanent disability is to the extent of 31% which invariably suggest injuries to different parts of the body gone upto 93%. But the nature of disability to the total body is not stated by him. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Insurance Company has denied the claim of the petitioner only with a malafide intention to avoid the liability. 9. But the nature of disability to the total body is not stated by him. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Insurance Company has denied the claim of the petitioner only with a malafide intention to avoid the liability. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company submits that the claim of the petitioner is false as there was no accident at all and that Ex. P. 9, the wound certificate, would suggest that the injured himself has given the history of injury as 'fall at workplace at Bikkonahalli' and it was noted as 'sell fall'. The injuries sustained by him, if any, are deemed t have been self inflicted. 10. Insofar as the oral evidence is concerned, the petitioner has got examined himself as PW.1 and produced Exs. P.1 to 58 including Police Notice, FIR, copy of the private complaint and wound certificate etc. The Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition has taken note of the wound certificate marked as Ex. P. 9 and the injured himself has given the history as 'fall at work place at Bikkonahalli' . The doctor has also observed as 'fali at work place' while carrying load on his back at Shivamogga on 28-6-2012 at 12.30 p.m.'. 11. In the wound certificate issued by Shivamogga Institute of Medical Sciences, it is stated that the injured sustained injuries due to a fall. Here, the concept of just compensation always depends on just entitlement of the claimant. 12. The Tribunal also noted on the silence when asked about injuries and demeanor. 13. Learned counsel for appellant submits that as the charge sheet is filed and the vehicle was insured, the petitioner was entitled for the compensation. 14. It is to be seen that the complaint came to be registered not on the basis of the FIR registered by the Police, but on the strength of the private complaint filed by the petitioner that was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation under section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., 1973 Even in column 10 of the FIR-Ex. P.1, the reference is shown regarding the basis for registering the case as the complaint being referred to police for investigation and the case was registered in Cr. P.C., 1973 Even in column 10 of the FIR-Ex. P.1, the reference is shown regarding the basis for registering the case as the complaint being referred to police for investigation and the case was registered in Cr. No. 243/2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC, the complainant is Ranganatha H. K. For that matter, even the final report is submitted by the jurisdictional police for the offence unishable under Sections 279 and 338 of IPC against Omkarappa, the owner of the vehicle bearing No. KA-14-EC-2718 and the complainant is the petitioner. The petitioner has not chosen to examine witness worthy in support of his claim. Regard being had to the fact that several persons are shown as eyewitnesses in the final report/charge sheet. It is necessary to note and find that a complaint or an FIR or investigative process in respect of an injury are not the exclusive criterion to conclude that a motor vehicle accident as the claim petition, objections, material on hand driving license, disability, insurance and other relevant factors causing injuries and injured is liable for compensation. 15. Learned member of the Tribunal framed issues relating to accident dated 28-6-2012, at Bikkonahalli, rash and negligent driving and regarding entitlement of the petitioner therein for compensation and the petitioner claims that the jurisdictional police did not entertain him and refused as well, it was later the petitioner had to file a private complaint. In the process, the present complaint was filed later. Complaint, private complaint, FIR and charge sheet collectively or individually are not exclusive factors for the entitlement of the compensation. 16. The Tribunal has dismissed the petition for compensation. Thus, there was no allotment of compensation under any heads. 17. In a given case for compensation clean hands are also equally important, fair claim is relevant in addition to the documents. 18. In this case, the petitioner claims the occurrence of accident on 28-6-2012 and causing injuries to him. The evidence of the doctor does not convey or suggest the petitioner sustaining injuries because of the road accident. On the other hand, the relevant marking in the medical document suggest that the petitioner made a false claim by the concept of road accident and projecting his injuries as those sustained by him in it. 19. The evidence of the doctor does not convey or suggest the petitioner sustaining injuries because of the road accident. On the other hand, the relevant marking in the medical document suggest that the petitioner made a false claim by the concept of road accident and projecting his injuries as those sustained by him in it. 19. On going through the records on hand including claim, contentions and the submissions made by learned counsel it is found that the petitioner is not entitled for compensation as claimed by him or any amount. 20. On perusing the entire court records of the Tribunal and going through the evidence and other material evidence on record, this Court finds no irregularity, perversity or non-application of mind by the learned member of the Tribunal. 21. The judgment and award does not call for interference by this Court. The conduct of the petitioner in preferring the appeal against the judgment and award is not proper and is liable to pay costs of the appeal. Thus, the appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs. 22. Accordingly, while confirming the impugned judgment, the appeal is dismissed with costs.