JUDGMENT M.G.Uma, J. - The appellant has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed in W.C.No.383/2007 dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal (in short 'the Commissioner'), allowing claim petition filed by the petitioners (in short 'claimant') and awarding compensation of Rs.1,34,568/- against respondent No.2 with interest at 12% p.a. payable from 30 days after the date of accident, till realization. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant Sri.Nagangouda R Kuppelur and learned advocate Sri.Deepak C.Maganoor for respondent No.1 and Sri.Shivasai M. Patil for respondent No.2. 3. The brief facts of the case are that; the claimant has filed the claim petition before the Commissioner under Section 10 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, claiming compensation for injuries sustained by him, in the road traffic accident, while he was driving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37/4349. 4. It is contended by the claimant that he was driving the lorry owned by respondent No.1 (hereafter referred to as the 'insured') and insured with respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer'). 5. It is stated that when the claimant was driving the lorry in question, loaded with fertilizers from Karwar and proceeding to Gangavati, he noticed a mini lorry coming from the opposite direction near Bollapur village, 18 kms after Ankola. The driver of the said mini lorry suddenly came towards the lorry driven by the claimant and therefore he applied the break, in order to avoid accident, as a result of which, his lorry turned turtle on the highway and the claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Kamal Hospital at Ankola, where he was treated as inpatient. Subsequently, he was shifted to Gangavati and treated in Chiniwal Hospital as inpatient for a period of one month. While he was taking treatment as inpatient at Kamal Hospital, the police have recorded his statement as the doctor had informed the police regarding the accident. 6. It is stated by the claimant that he had spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and the incident had occurred while he was under the employment of the insured. The offending vehicle was insured with the insurer. 7. It is further stated by the claimant that he was drawing salary of Rs.4,500/- per month, as he was working as driver and getting bata of Rs.50/- per day. The offending vehicle was insured with the insurer. 7. It is further stated by the claimant that he was drawing salary of Rs.4,500/- per month, as he was working as driver and getting bata of Rs.50/- per day. After the accident, he is unable to carry on his work and has lost his income. Therefore, he requested the Commissioner to award compensation to be payable by the insured and the insurer. 8. The owner/insured remained absent before the Commissioner and has not contested the matter. The insurer-insurance company filed its written statement denying the fact of accident and sustaining injury by the claimant. His occupation, monthly income, the injuries said to have sustained, the medical expenses, are also denied. Without admitting the liability, the insurer also contended that the claimant was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 9. The claimant got examined himself and two witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to P7 in support of his contention. The insurer got examined RW1 in support of its defence. The Commissioner after taking into consideration all the materials on record came to the conclusion that there was a road traffic accident as contended by the claimant and that the claimant has proved that he had sustained grievous injury which has resulted in loss of income and proceeded to award compensation of Rs.1,34,568/- against the insurer to be payable with interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the accident, till realization. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Labour Commissioner, the insurer has preferred this appeal. 10. Learned advocate for the insurer in support of the grounds made out in the memorandum of appeal contended that the claimant has made a false claim, even though there was no accident as claimed. The date of accident according to the claimant was 02.12.2005, but the claim petition was filed on 30.10.2007. There is absolutely no explanation as to why there was such an inordinate delay in filing the claim petition. He further submitted that no complaint was filed and no FIR was registered in respect of the accident referred to by the claimant. Admittedly the claimant has not filed any complaint. Even though it is stated that the doctor has given the intimation to the police, no such materials are placed before the Commissioner. He further submitted that no complaint was filed and no FIR was registered in respect of the accident referred to by the claimant. Admittedly the claimant has not filed any complaint. Even though it is stated that the doctor has given the intimation to the police, no such materials are placed before the Commissioner. The wound certificate and the disability certificate relied on by the claimant are not helpful to claim the compensation but inspite of that, the Labour Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and award, awarding compensation without any basis. 11. Alternatively he submitted the assessment of the monthly income taken by the Commissioner for assessing the loss of income and also percentage of disability for the claimant was also baseless. Awarding of interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the accident, is also without any basis, when the claimant himself has not chosen to file the claim petition claiming compensation. 12. He further contended that the insured remained ex parte before the Commissioner and deliberately not contested the matter. He also submitted that as per the say of the claimant, the lorry was loaded with fertilizers and had turned turtle on the highway. But inspite of that, the owner who is the insured had not claimed compensation for the damages sustained by him. All these facts and circumstances go to show that a false claim was laid by the claimant before the Commissioner in order to make wrongful gain. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal and to set aside impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner in the interest of justice. 13. The learned advocate Sri.Deepak C.Maganoor representing the claimant/respondent No.1 submitted that the lorry in question was insured with the insurance company and therefore the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and he supported the impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner. 14. The learned advocate Sri.Shivasai M. Patil representing the insured/respondent No.2 in support of the impugned judgment submitted that since the claimant was unconscious immediately after the accident and since he was shifted to the hospital, he could not lodge the complaint with the police regarding the accident. He examined PW2, as the eyewitness to the incident and also examined PW3 as the doctor who treated the claimant. He examined PW2, as the eyewitness to the incident and also examined PW3 as the doctor who treated the claimant. The wound certificate Ex.P1, discharge card Ex.P2 and the disability certificate Ex.P7 are produced and all these documents clearly go to show that there was road traffic accident as contended by the claimant and considering all these materials on record, the Commissioner has passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the same and he prays for confirming the said judgment in the interest of justice. 15. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, I have perused the materials on record including the trial Court records. 16. Since the insurer is seriously disputing the factum of the accident itself, I have to consider the contention of the claimant regarding the accident and the claim made by him. 17. According to the claimant, the accident had occurred on 02.12.2005 at 11.00 am on the highway near Ankola, while he was driving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37/4349 loaded with fertilizers towards Koppal. He had applied break on seeing a mini lorry coming from opposite direction and the lorry turned turtle and the claimant sustained injuries. 18. It is the say of the claimant that he was admitted to Kamal Hospital immediately after the accident. To prove this contention, the claimant is relying on Ex.P1-wound certificate issued by the doctor, Kamal Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Ankola. As per this document, the claimant was brought to the hospital by one Veereshappa from Davangere, with the history of road traffic accident that occurred on 02.12.2005 at 12.30 p.m. The injured was brought to the hospital on 03.12.2005 and examined at 1.45 am. He had sustained contusion over right thigh with tenderness and pain on movement, old operative scar L/2 lateral aspect of right thigh was also noted. There was also contusion measuring 3cmx3m on the right suprascapular area with irregular scaltered abrasion over it. The injuries were said to be about 6-24 hours old. Injured was admitted to the hospital on 03.12.2005 at 1.45 am and discharged on the same day at 4.55 pm. The Xray showed fracture of shaft 1/3, right femur, which was grievous in nature. It opined that both the above injuries may be caused due to hard and blunt object coming in contact with the body. 19. Injured was admitted to the hospital on 03.12.2005 at 1.45 am and discharged on the same day at 4.55 pm. The Xray showed fracture of shaft 1/3, right femur, which was grievous in nature. It opined that both the above injuries may be caused due to hard and blunt object coming in contact with the body. 19. From these documents, it is clear that even though it is contended that the road traffic accident had occurred on 02.12.2005 at 12.30 pm, the injured was brought to the hospital on 03.12.2005 at 1.45 am. There is no explanation as to why there was such delay in shifting the injured to the hospital. 20. The claimant states in his evidence that he was not conscious after the accident, but he also states that PW2 Fakeerappa was the eye witness to the incident as he was driving his lorry bearing Registration No.KA37/6228 along with him and immediately he shifted the injured to KLE hospital but as per the wound certificate, the injured was not accompanied by PW2 Fakeerappa but by one Veerashappa of Davangere. 21. The claimant also states that when he was in the hospital, the doctor had informed the police regarding the accident and the police came and recorded his statement. But admittedly no complaint was filed and no FIR has been registered. There is absolutely no explanation by the claimant as to why he has not lodged the complaint, atleast after gaining consciousness or discharging from the hospital. 22. It is pertinent to note here that the wound certificate Ex.P1 was issued on 23.08.2006 i.e. about 8 months after the alleged date of accident. Even though it is stated that the claimant had sustained injuries in the accident, which had occurred on 02.12.2005, no claim petition was filed till 30.10.2010 i.e., nearly after about 2 years, the claim petition was filed before the Labour Commission claiming compensation. In the claim petition also there is no explanation for the delay caused in claiming the compensation. Moreover even though the claimant contended that he had taken treatment at Ankola and at Gangavati, as inpatient, no documents are forthcoming to prove the same. 23. It is pertinent to note that the insured/owner remained ex parte before the Commissioner and never chosen to contest the matter. 24. Moreover even though the claimant contended that he had taken treatment at Ankola and at Gangavati, as inpatient, no documents are forthcoming to prove the same. 23. It is pertinent to note that the insured/owner remained ex parte before the Commissioner and never chosen to contest the matter. 24. It is the contention of the claimant that he was driving the lorry belonging to the insured and it was loaded with fertilizers. If at all the lorry had turned turtled on the highway, definitely it could have caused some damages to the lorry and also to the goods carried in it. But no claim was placed by the insured with the insurer, claiming damages to the vehicle or to the goods carried in it. No document is produced before the Commissioner to show that the lorry in question got damaged in the said accident. All these facts and circumstances together give rise to serious doubt about the contention taken by the claimant regarding the accident and he sustaining the injuries resulting in disability. Even though the claimant has produced wound certificate, discharge card and disability certificate, they are all of no use, when he has failed to prove the factum of the accident itself. 25. Learned advocate for the claimant has relied on the decision in Meenakshamma Vs. Hanumanthappa, (1996) ILR(Kar) 161 . In the said decision, this Court had held that simply because there was no FIR registered, it cannot be presumed that there was no accident and that the claim of the claimant, is false. 26. I do not have any dispute with regard to the said finding given by this Court but the discussion held above, discloses that the claimant has failed to probabalise his contention that there was a road traffic accident involving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37/4349 and he sustaining injury in the said accident. 26. I do not have any dispute with regard to the said finding given by this Court but the discussion held above, discloses that the claimant has failed to probabalise his contention that there was a road traffic accident involving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-37/4349 and he sustaining injury in the said accident. It is not only the non-filing of the complaint and non-registration of FIR about the accident in question, which prompted this Court to raise serious doubt about the road traffic accident, as contended by the claimant, but non production of any material to prove that there was damage caused to the offending lorry, not claiming damages to the lorry by the insured from the insurer, inordinate delay in getting wound certificate Ex.P1, inordinate delay of about 2 years in filing the claim petition before the Commissioner, are also the grounds, which raises serious doubt about the contention of the claimant regarding the road traffic accident. 27. Even the disability certificate Ex.P7 was issued on 06.03.2010 and this certificate go to show that PW3 had never treated this witness for the injuries said to have been sustained, but the claimant had approached him for issuance of disability certificate on 06.03.2010 on the basis of records shown by the claimant. The details of the road traffic accident was mentioned in Ex.P7, cannot be of any help to the claimant. 28. The discussions held above, since it leads to serious doubt about the contention of the claimant about road traffic accident, I am of the opinion that the claimant has not probabalised the factum of road traffic accident and therefore he is not entitled for any compensation as claimed. 29. I have gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the Labour Commissioner. He has not taken into consideration any of the glaring inconsistencies in the case made out and proceed to award compensation without any basis. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned judgment and award awarding compensation infavour of the claimant, is liable to be set aside and the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned judgment and award passed in W.C.No.383/2007 dated 29.09.2011 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal, is set aside. The claim of the claimant before the Commissioner, is rejected. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed with costs. The impugned judgment and award passed in W.C.No.383/2007 dated 29.09.2011 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Koppal, is set aside. The claim of the claimant before the Commissioner, is rejected. The amount of compensation if any, deposited by the insurer is ordered to be refunded. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records with the copy of the judgment.