JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J. 1. These two appeals by the claimants seek to lay a challenge to the common Judgment and Award dated 12.07.2018 entered by the MACT, Vijayapura negativing their claim for compensation in MVC No.800/2016 and MVC No.802/2016 agreeing with the contention of the respondent-insurer that the said claims were false. After service of notice, the Insurer having entered appearance through it s learned Panel Counsel opposes the appeal making submission in justification of the impugned dismissal of the claims. 2. Brief facts: (a) The claimants were moving on the Bike bearing Regn.No.MH-10/BY-4175 from Walas-ang to Jath on 09.10.2015 at about 8.00 p.m. the claimant in MVC No.800/2016 was the rider and the claimant in MVC No.802/2016 was the pillion rider; the offending Maruti Omni Van bearing Regn.No.MH-45/A-3422 came from opposite direction and being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the Bike; as a result the claimants sustained grievous injuries; their claim petitions were resisted by the insurer by filing the Statement of Objections. (b) Both the claim petitions arising from the same fact-matrix were tried together; the claimant in MVC No.800/2016 Mr. Shamrao was examined as PW-1 and claimant in MVC No.802/2016 was examined as PW-2; the Physician who had treated the injured claimants namely, Dr. S.S. Nagathan was examined as PW-3; from the side of the claimants 17 documents came to be marked as per Exs.P.1 to P.17 which comprised of FIR/Complaint, Spot Panchanama and Medical Records. From the side of the Insurer, one Mr. Rakesh Ashok Halale was examined as RW-1 and 03 documents namely, the Authorization Letter and two Case Sheets came to be marked as Exs.R.1 to R.3. (c) The MACT having adverted to the pleadings of the parties and having weighed the evidence placed on record, disbelieved the version of the claimants and dismissed their claim; the reason for dismissal are succinctly stated at Para 24 of the impugned Judgment and Award that are now put in challenge in these appeals, which are taken up together for hearing as suggested at the Bar. 3. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the case papers along with the relevant copies of the TCR made available by the learned counsel, this court declines to interfere in the matter for the following discussion: (a) The MACT having examined the record has entered a specific finding that the alleged accident did not happen on 09.10.2015 at all; this finding is supported by the Charge-sheet which mentions 29.12.2015 as the date on which the FIR was lodged; the very next day, spot visit having been accomplished, a Spot Mahazar dated 30.12.2015 came to be drawn up; the version of the claimants that the accident happened on 09.10.2015 and on the next day the FIR was lodged is bit difficult to agree with when the copy of the FIR produced at Ex.P.4 does not mention anything about the same having been forwarded to the jurisdictional JMFC; therefore the said document which has significance suffers a thick shadow of doubt. 4. The claimants asserted that the accident in question happened on 09.10.2015 and they were treated on the same day in a local hospital; a few days thereafter they went to Dr. B.K. Prani Hospital for further treatment; however, they suppressed their initial treatment in the local hospital and did not produce any medical records concerning the said treatment; therefore, the MACT justifiably drew an adverse inference that they had withheld relevant documents whose production would have revealed the true story of their contracting the injuries; it is a settled principle of law that a person approaching the courts should seek justice with "clean hands, clean head and clean heart" the claimants did not do this, even when the medical records of Dr. B.K. Prani Hospital produced by them at Ex.P.3 and P.9 specifically mention about their initial treatment at the hands of a local doctor. 5. B.K. Prani Hospital produced by them at Ex.P.3 and P.9 specifically mention about their initial treatment at the hands of a local doctor. 5. The MACT after perusing the medical records and other evidence formed a reasonable opinion that the medical records generated at the hands of the local doctor would have revealed the truth inasmuch as an injured person rushing to the hospital immediately after the accident would reveal the material particulars of such accident truthfully; it come to the conclusion that the claimants had sustained injuries by falling down from their own bike with no other vehicle having dashed to it; this being the inferential finding recorded by the MACT in its wisdom, this court is unable to faulted the same in the absence of any cogent material to the contrary. 6. In the above circumstances, these appeals being unmeritorious are liable to be dismissed and accordingly they are. 7. Costs made easy.