JUDGMENT : 1. The appeal is listed for admission and is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant. The first and second respondents, though served, have remained unrepresented. 2. The brief facts are: 3. The claimant/first respondent presented a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation asserting that he sustained injures in a road traffic accident on 8.2.2009 at about 11 a.m. when he was riding on the pillion of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-53-H-7811 near Kalyan Nagar, opposite State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore. The claimant asserted that the second respondent was riding the motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, he lost control of the motorbike and hit the centre median of the road throwing the claimant off the motorbike; and in this accident, the claimant suffered lacerated wound on the face and closed fracture of both bones of right leg. The claimant also asserted that while the first of the injuries was simple in nature, the second of the injuries is grievous in nature, and he underwent surgery at HOSMAT Hospital, Bangalore where he was an inpatient between 8.2.2009 and 10.2.2009. The claimant further asserted that he had spent a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-towards hospitalization and medical expenses and sum of Rs.1,00,000/-towards transportation, nourishment and other incidental expenses; and insofar as loss of income and loss of earning capacity, the claimant asserted that he was earning a sum of Rs.33,000/-per month from running a Cyber Unit at Ramamurthy Nagar and because he was incapacitated for over a period of six months, he had to shut down the business and remain without any avocation. 4. The owner of the motor bike viz., second respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. But, the insurer/appellant entered appearance and contested the claim petition contending inter alia that the claimant/first respondent was himself riding the motor bike at the time of accident and a story of the claimant being on the pillion was set up for the purposes of claiming compensation/indemnification from the insurer/appellant and that, because the claimant/first respondent was himself the rider of the motor cycle at the time of the accident, insurer/appellant is not liable to pay any compensation in terms of the policy that is issued. 5. 5. The claimant/first respondent examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-13, which included would certificate, discharge summary, estimates for future surgeries, police records and medical/travelling bills. The insurer/appellant examined one of its officers as RW.1 and marked Exs.R-1 and R-2. 6. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment has awarded a sum of Rs.78,900/-with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization and held the respondents i.e, the second respondent and the insurer/appellant would be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and because of the subsisting insurance policy, the insurer/appellant is directed to deposit the entire compensation with costs and interest within 30 days from the date of the award. 7. The insurer/appellant has filed this appeal impugning the Tribunal’s judgment and award insofar as the insurer/appellant is made liable to pay/deposit the compensation awarded to the claimant/first respondent. The insurer/appellant assails the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident and the first respondent was on the pillion contending that if the claimant/first respondent himself was riding the motorbike, it would then be a case of 'own damage' in which event the insurer/appellant cannot be liable. The insurer/appellant contends that the appellant’s defense that the claimant/first respondent was riding the motor cycle and not the second respondent ought to have been considered in the light of facts and circumstances relied upon by the insurer/appellant, but the Tribunal has failed to consider such facts and circumstances. 8. The learned Counsel for the insurer/appellant arguing in support of the appellant's case contended that the Tribunal could not have ignored Ex.R.2, the 'Accident and Trauma Chart' issued by HOSMAT Hospital which is the first record of the circumstances of the accident. 8. The learned Counsel for the insurer/appellant arguing in support of the appellant's case contended that the Tribunal could not have ignored Ex.R.2, the 'Accident and Trauma Chart' issued by HOSMAT Hospital which is the first record of the circumstances of the accident. The learned counsel argued that the statement in Ex.R-2 is recorded by the doctor and it is immediately after the accident, and Ex.R-2 establishes that the claimant/first respondent has stated before the Doctor with HOSMAT hospital that he was riding the motor bike at the time of the accident, he lost control of the motor bike and hit the centre median of the road, and the learned counsel emphasized that the Tribunal could not have discarded this unimpeachable document especially because the claimant/first respondent, in the cross-examination, had categorically admitted that indeed he had given a statement to the doctors at HOSMAT hospital admitting that he was riding the motor bike. The learned counsel for the appellant next emphasized that it was only after four days from the date of the accident, i.e., on 12.2.2009, the claimant/first respondent lodged a FIR with the Police setting up the theory, as an afterthought, that the motorcycle was being ridden by the second respondent and that he was on the pillion. 9. It is based on these assertions that the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in concluding that the second respondent was riding the motor cycle and he caused the accident resulting in injuries to the claimant/first respondent who was on the pillion of the motor bike. In view of the submissions by the learned counsel for the appellant, and the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is: whether the Tribunal was justified in concluding that the accident in question was caused by the rash and negligent driving of the rider viz., the second respondent of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-H-7811? 10. 10. This question is of significance because it is undisputed that if the claimant/first respondent was a pillion rider and not the rider of the motorbike at the time of the accident, the insurer/appellant would be liable; and on the other hand, if the first respondent was himself riding the motor bike, the insurance company/appellant will not be liable as it would tantamount to own damage which excludes the liability of the insurance company/appellant in terms of the policy conditions. 11. The Tribunal, in answering the different issues framed for consideration -including issue No.1, which required the first respondent to prove that he sustained grievous injures arising out of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-53-H-7811 by the second respondent, has concluded that the second respondent was the rider of the motorcycle bearing No. KA-53-H-7811 at the time of the accident and that the first respondent sustained grievous injuries in such accident, and in reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal has relied upon the police documents and the ocular evidence of the first respondent. Insofar as Ex.R-2, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal has not accepted such document as establishing the insurer/appellant’s defense for two-fold reasons viz., the insurer/appellant has not examined the Doctor who has entered the contents of Ex.R-2 and the said exhibit does not indicate that the claimant/first respondent was under the influence of alcohol. 12. The insurer/appellant's defence is essentially structured around Ex.R.2, which is described as ‘Accident and Trauma Chart’, and even as per Ex.R.2, the requisite contents are to be filled up by the doctor. According to the contents entered in Ex.R.2, the details mentioned therein are furnished by the claimant/first respondent and the history of injury as recorded therein reads that the injuries are suffered 'in road traffic accident on 8.2.2009 at around 11.30p.m. near Basavanagudi. Patient was riding a two wheeler which lost control and hit against a road divider, sustained injury to right lower limb and face. Patient was not wearing his helmet. In addition, it is the contention on behalf of the insurer/appellant that the contents of this Ex.R.2 is admitted by the first respondent in his cross-examination. Patient was riding a two wheeler which lost control and hit against a road divider, sustained injury to right lower limb and face. Patient was not wearing his helmet. In addition, it is the contention on behalf of the insurer/appellant that the contents of this Ex.R.2 is admitted by the first respondent in his cross-examination. The relevant part of the first respondent's cross-examination reads as follows: "It is true that I have given statement in HOSMAT hospital due to loss of control over the vehicle and met with the accident”. 13. The probative value of Ex.R2, and the significance of the said statement in the cross examination, will have to be considered in the context of the other circumstances as borne out by the evidence on record. As regards Ex.R.2 itself, though it is stated that the contents thereof should be recorded by the concerned doctor, there is nothing to indicate who was the doctor who filled up the details in Ex.R.2, and nothing is brought on record by the insurer/appellant to establish the identity of the doctor who recorded or filled up the contents of Ex.R.2. The contents of Ex.R.2 will also have to be examined in the context of the history of injury/accident as recorded in the Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary, both of which again are issued by the HOSMAT Hospital. In the wound certificate, Ex.P.3, it is recorded that the injury to the claimant/first respondent was because of a road traffic accident on 8.2.2009 at 4.30 p.m. and even in the discharge summary, the history of the injury is recorded in similar terms. 14. Thus, on one hand we have Ex.R.2, which is purportedly filled up by the doctor recording that the first respondent was riding the motorbike and on the other hand there are the Wound Certificate and Discharge Summary that only record that the claimant/first respondent suffered injuries in a road traffic accident. For these reasons, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3171/2009 that evidence of a Doctor as regards the contents entered by him/her cannot be ignored is also not applicable to the present case. 15. For these reasons, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3171/2009 that evidence of a Doctor as regards the contents entered by him/her cannot be ignored is also not applicable to the present case. 15. The insurer/appellant other than Ex.R.2, whose probative value is vastly diminished for the reasons stated above, is able to emphasize upon the claimant/first respondent' statement in the cross examination as regards the statement recorded in Ex.R.2; and upon lodging the first information report with the police after four days from the date of accident. It must be noted that Ex.R.2 is not confronted to the claimant/first respondent (and, in fact Ex.R.2 is marked much later through RW.1) and the suggestion made to the claimant/first respondent is that it is recorded in the HOSMAT hospital that the accident was because there was loss control over the vehicle. It is not even suggested to the witness (the claimant/first respondent) that he has stated before the Doctor with HOSMAT hospital, or that it is recorded in the medical records with HOSMAT hospital, that he was riding the motorcycle, he lost the control over the vehicle and met with the accident. As such, it cannot be accepted that the claimant/first respondent has admitted that he was riding the motor bike at the time of the accident. 16. As regards the lodging of the first information report four days after the date of the accident, the medical records indicate that the first respondent was hospitalized immediately after the accident, he was operated upon and was discharged on 10.02.2009, and the complaint is lodged on 12.02.2009. Therefore, just because there is delay in registering the FIR with the jurisdictional after four days of the accident it cannot be concluded that the claimant/first respondent was riding the motor bike at the time of the accident and later with malafide intentions he lodged the complaint with the police stating that he was on the pillion of the motor bike. 17. The Tribunal, taking note of the fact that the insurance company/appellant (which had to discharge the onus of establishing its defense) had failed to examine the doctor who purportedly recorded the contents of Ex. R 2, has concluded, relying upon the other medical records and the police records, that the second respondent was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and he was responsible for the accident. R 2, has concluded, relying upon the other medical records and the police records, that the second respondent was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and he was responsible for the accident. The circumstances relied upon by the appellant/insurance company, considered in terms above, are neither compelling nor sufficient to justify a conclusion that the Tribunal’s finding on who caused the accident is either perverse or irregular. As such, there is no justification for interference with the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. 19. The statutory deposit made by the appellant in this appeal is directed to be transferred to the Tribunal for further course of action.