JUDGMENT : Sabina, J. 1. Vide this order above mentioned two appeals would be disposed of as they have arisen out of award dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Claimant Jaiprakash @ Pappu had filed the claim petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the motor vehicle accident which had occurred on 11.12.2011. 3. Vide award dated 02.03.2016, Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant. Hence, claimant has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount, whereas, the Insurance Company has filed the appeal seeking dismissal of the claim petition. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that the accident had occurred on 11.12.2011, whereas, the complaint under Section 156 (3) Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') was moved on 19.12.2011 and FIR was registered on 03.01.2012. The delay in filing the complaint has been utilized by the claimant and the owner of the offending vehicle to connive with each other and the present claim petition by making false averments. Infact, no accident has alleged had occurred. There was no entry of Roznamcha register on 11.12.2011 with regard to the accident-in-question. The alleged eye witness Mahendra Kumar examined by the claimant had stood surety for the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of submission of his bail bonds in the criminal case. It was the case of the claimant that he was sitting on the motorcycle-in-question on the pillion seat and the same was being driven by respondent No. 2 Sikander. Some animal came in front of the motorcycle and as a result, the accident had occurred. It is the case of the claimant that the motorcycle had fallen in a ditch and he had come under the motorcycle. However, the said averments were not corroborated by the Mechanical Test Report of the motorcycle, Exhibit-13. As per the said report, plastic sheet fixed above the headlight was damaged. Owner of the offending vehicle is a close relative of the claimant. Hence, the offending vehicle has been involved in this case by the appellant in collusion with the owner of the vehicle to enable the claimant to get compensation from the Insurance Company. As per the said report, plastic sheet fixed above the headlight was damaged. Owner of the offending vehicle is a close relative of the claimant. Hence, the offending vehicle has been involved in this case by the appellant in collusion with the owner of the vehicle to enable the claimant to get compensation from the Insurance Company. Claimant had failed to prove the initial medical admission record showing that he was admitted in the hospital as a case of road side accident. 5. Learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the claimant had been successful in proving his case. Learned Tribunal has rightly decided all the issues in favour of the claimant. However, the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal was on a lower side and required enhancement. The delay in lodging the FIR had been duly explained by the claimant. Claimant was admitted in the hospital from 11.12.2011 to 16.12.2011 and had immediately filed the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 19.12.2011. 6. Case of the claimant, as per claim petition is that on 11.12.2011, he was travelling on motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-35-F-1471 as a pillion rider. At about 8.30 a.m., when they reached near the bridge of Sabi river and were taking the turn, accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle. The Driver while trying to save an animal, lost control over the motorcycle. The driver himself jumped from the motorcycle, whereas, the claimant alongwith motorcycle fell in a ditch and came under the motorcycle. As a result, he suffered serious injuries. 7. A perusal of Exhibit-1, FIR got registered by the wife of the claimant shows that the name of the person, who was driving the motorcycle-in-question has not been disclosed. 8. Claimant while appearing in the witness box as AW-1 and Saroj Devi while appearing in the witness box as AW-2 have deposed with regard to the manner of accident in their examination-in-chief. In cross-examination, claimant has admitted that the driver of the motorcycle was his nephew (in relations). AW-2 has also admitted in her cross-examination that Sikander, driver of the motorcycle, was a relative of her husband. Thus, the claimant and the driver of the motorcycle were known and related to each other. However, complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed after a delay of 8 days. Accident had occurred on 11.12.2011. AW-2 has also admitted in her cross-examination that Sikander, driver of the motorcycle, was a relative of her husband. Thus, the claimant and the driver of the motorcycle were known and related to each other. However, complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed after a delay of 8 days. Accident had occurred on 11.12.2011. Claimant was discharged from the hospital on 16.12.2011 and after a delay of 3 days, complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was filed by the wife of the claimant. 9. As per Exhibit-13, Mechanical Test Report of the motorcycle-in-question, the plastic sheet fixed above the headlight was damaged. Thus, there was no other scratch found on the motorcycle, although, as per the case of the claimant, motorcycle had fallen in a ditch. 10. Exhibit-NA-1, Medical Treatment Record of the claimant reveals that he was admitted in Shri Shyam hospital on 11.12.2011 and was discharged on 16.12.2011. Claimant had been admitted in the hospital due to crush injury on right hand and had suffered fracture of right leg. However, in the said record, it is not stated that the claimant had suffered injuries in a road side accident. 11. Claimant was got medically examined on 05.01.2012 as per Exhibit-5. 12. Since, in the initial admission/medical record of the claimant, it was not mentioned that he had suffered injuries in a road side accident the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company gain significance. The delay in filing the complaint under Section 156(3) also gain significance. Claimant and the driver of the offending motorcycle are closely related to each other. Hence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the claim petition was filed by the claimant in collusion with his relative with a view to get compensation from the Insurance Company also gains significance. 13. Thus, in the present case, learned Tribunal has erred in deciding Issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant. Rather, Issue No. 1 was liable to be decided against the claimant as it can not be said that the claimant was successful in proving that he had suffered injuries in the accident which had occurred on 11.12.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending motorcycle. 14. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimant. 14. Accordingly, finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is reversed and the said issue is decided against the claimant. In view of the finding on Issue No. 1, the claim petition filed by the claimant is liable to be dismissed. 15. Accordingly, S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1935/2016 filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1567/2016 filed by the claimant is dismissed. Consequently, claim petition filed by the claimant stands dismissed and the impugned award dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Tribunal is set aside.