JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. Appellant has preferred the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgment & award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa (for short, ‘the tribunal) in Claim Petition No. 173/2003, by which the claim petition filed by the claimant/appellant was dismissed. 2. In short the relevant facts of the case are that a claim petition came to be filed by the claimant/appellant before the Tribunal claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/- on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident which took place on 22.09.2002 when he was travelling in a jeep which was hit by a mini truck driven rashly and negligently by its driver. First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) No. 645/2002 was lodged at Police Station Dausa and after investigation the police filed charge-sheet against respondent No. 1. The respondents filed their written statements denying the averments made in the claim petition. 3. Learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties vide its judgment & award dated 15.09.2005 dismissed the claim petition of the appellant. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the tribunal without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without appreciating the evidence available on record dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant-claimant. It is right that in the FIR, the version of the claimant was altogether different, but it was found after investigation that the jeep was hit by the mini truck, which was driven rashly and negligently by its driver. Therefore, the appellant had no other option but to file the claim petition against the respondents. The driver of the truck did not file any reply to the claim petition and there fore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn against him by the tribunal. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has supported the impugned judgment of the tribunal and has submitted that the FIR was lodged by the claimant himself in his writing. The version of the claimant with regard to accident is totally different from the one mentioned in the claim petition. The offending vehicle i.e. mini truck was falsely implicated in the case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and also the judgment cited at bar. 8. The version of the claimant with regard to accident is totally different from the one mentioned in the claim petition. The offending vehicle i.e. mini truck was falsely implicated in the case. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and also the judgment cited at bar. 8. Before considering the controversy on its merits, it is worthwhile to narrate the version given by the claimant in his FIR immediately after the accident:— lsok esa] Jheku~ ,l0,p0vks0 lkgc] iqfyl Fkkuk nkSlk fo"k; %& ,DlhMsUV gks tkus ckcr~A egksn;] mijksDr fo"k; esa fuosnu gS fd fnukad 22-09-2002 dks eSa ljk; ls thi uEcj vkj0ts0 29&Vh&0030 esa cSBdj nkSlk ls vk jgk Fkk le; djhc nksigj ckn 2-30 cts Hkk.Mkjst jksM ds ikl thi igqaphA thi pkyd thi dks cMh rsth o ykijokgh ls pykrk vk jgk FkkA eSaus mldks thi dks /khjs pykus ds fy, dkQh dgh ysfdu thi pkyd ugha ekukA Hkk.Mkjst eksM ds ikl igqaprs gh thi pkyd us thi ,d VkVk vkj0ts0 29&th0295 vksojVsd djus ds pDdj esa thi dks rst jQrkj ls vksojVsd djus yxk rks thi ,d [kM~<s esa mBky ekjdj frjNh gks x;h ftlls eSa uhps lMd ij tk fxjkA eSajs flj esa xaHkhj pksV vkbZ eq>s ogka dqN O;fDr;ksa o fpjath yky o jkefd'kksj mBkdj xaHkhj pksV ds dkj.k ,l0,e0,l0 ys x;s tgka esjk bZykt djk;kA ogka ls ekyoh; vLirky esa HkrhZ jgdj bZykt djk;kA eSa vc rd esjk bZykt djkrk jgk] vc Bhd gksus ij thi pkyd ds f[kykQ fjiksVZ ntZ djus dh d`ik djsaA cnzhjke cnzh iq= Jh gjukFk tkfr xqtZj fuoklh [kkj.Mh rglhy ftyk nkSlkA 8. There fore, the negligence was attributed to the Jeep driver whereas claim petition was filed against the mini truck. The law in this regard may now be discussed. 9. In United India Insurance Company Limited v. Pawan Tikkiwal, reported in RLW 2007 (3) Raj. 2111, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:— “One of the settled principle of the law of evidence is that the first version of an incident contains the kernel of truth. For, it is the tendency of human beings to speak the truth immediately. Subsequently, after due deliberations, the facts can be changed, the story can be embroidered and a fictional version can be created. For, it is the tendency of human beings to speak the truth immediately. Subsequently, after due deliberations, the facts can be changed, the story can be embroidered and a fictional version can be created. Thus, while appreciating the evidence, the courts consider the initial statement as containing the substratum of truth. In case there is a change in the factual foundation of the case, the court should be put on alert and should scrutinise the evidence meticulously so as to separate the wheat from the sheff.” 10. Admittedly, the FIR was lodged by the claimant himself in his writing wherein it was mentioned that the accident occurred owing to the negligence of the driver of the jeep that he was driving. However, claimant later retracted from his statement, and claimed that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving by the truck driver. Had the accident been caused by the truck driver's negligence, this fact would have at least found a mention in the original statements of the claimant, which is clearly not the case, as the FIR does not even mention to the role of the truck in the entire accident. The Hon'ble Apex court has held in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. Surjeet Singh, reported in III (2005) ACC 60, that charge-sheet can not be treated as substantive piece of evidence. The evidence led before the tribunal needs to be properly examined. Only reason submitted by the counsel for the claimant for filing claim petition against the mini truck is that charge sheet was filed against its driver. This reason submitted by counsel for the claimant runs contrary to the facts narrated in the F.I.R. There is a variance between the pleading and contents of F.I.R. Evidently, the appellants have filed the claim with the mala fide intention of wrongfully implicating the truck driver claiming compensation for the injury sustained by him in the accident which was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.