JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Paramakudi, in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009 dated 19.03.2012.) 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009 dated 19.03.2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Paramakudi. 2. The appellant herein is the respondent and the respondent herein is the petitioner in the claim petition. The appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 27.01.2008. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,974/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009 is as follows: The claimant was aged about 35 years and was running parotta stall and was earning Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine Thousand only) per month. On 27.01.2008, the claimant and his friend Kamaldheen were returning back from Rameshwaram in a bus that belong to the respondent bearing registration No.TN-63-N-0541. The driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the claimant fell down from the bus and he sustained injuries. He was first admitted in Rameshwaram Government hospital and then he was admitted in Ramanathapuram Government hospital and subsequently, he was admitted in a private hospital. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) as compensation. 4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the respondent therein is as follows: The claimant unexpectedly jumped from the steps of the running bus. The bus driver immediately stopped the vehicle and on enquiry, the claimant told that his cell phone fell down and that to pick up the cell phone, he jumped out of the bus. The driver of the vehicle lodged a complaint against the claimant and the claimant has given a written statement before the Police that he was responsible for the accident. Subsequently, the claimant lodged a complaint after 25 days through some other person. After enquiry, the police closed the FIR as 'mistake of fact'. 5. The driver of the vehicle lodged a complaint against the claimant and the claimant has given a written statement before the Police that he was responsible for the accident. Subsequently, the claimant lodged a complaint after 25 days through some other person. After enquiry, the police closed the FIR as 'mistake of fact'. 5. On the side of the petitioner, 4 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked. On the side of the respondent, 2 witnesses were examined and 2 documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,79,974/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Four only) as compensation to be paid by the respondent. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that FIR was registered after 25 days from the date of alleged accident. The complaint itself is false. The earlier statement of the claimant was marked as Ex.R1. The delay in filing the FIR was not explained by the petitioner. Ex.R1 was voluntarily given by the claimant. Ex.P1, FIR was closed as 'mistake of fact'. The evidence of P.W.4, the Inspector of Police was erroneously rejected by the Tribunal. The claimant has not filed any objections to the referred chargesheet filed by the Police. The driver of the bus was not responsible for the accident. The doctor, who gave evidence neither treated the claimant nor conducted any scientific method of evaluation and the award is excessive. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant is responsible for the accident. The claimant has failed to prove the rash and negligent driving of the bus driver. The burden is on the claimant to prove the factum of accident. In support of his contention, a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and others v. Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013 (9) SCC 65 is cited. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the respondent is not liable to pay compensation for an accident that occurred due to the negligence of the claimant. In support of his contention, a judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. K.Rameshkumar and others reported in 2011 (2) TNMAC 78 is cited. 9. In support of his contention, a judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. K.Rameshkumar and others reported in 2011 (2) TNMAC 78 is cited. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon another judgment of this Court in the case of the New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sankar and another in C.M.A.No.1862 of 2020 dated 05.06.2017. 10. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the appellant has admitted the accident and that Ex.R1 is not bidding on the Tribunal and that the bus driver increased the speed suddenly and due to which, the respondent fell down and sustained injuries. The delay of FIR is not a ground to reject the claim petition. In support of his contention, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi v. Badrinarayan and others reported in 2011 (1) TNMAC 326 is cited. 11. Even in the claim petition, the petitioner has admitted that the petitioner was travelling in the foot board. Ex.R1 was the statement given by the claimant before the Dhanuskodi Police. P.W.4 Sub Inspector of Police has deposed that the FIR was closed as 'mistake of fact'. It is the duty of the claimant to prove the manner of accident. The claimant has to prove that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent. In the claim petition itself, the petitioner has admitted that he travelled in the foot board. The claimant has not filed any document to show that he has taken action against the closure of FIR as 'mistake of fact'. It is not the duty of the respondent to disprove the case. The respondent failed to prove that the driver of the bus is responsible for the accident. 12. In the above circumstances, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.79 of 2009 dated 19.03.2012, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Sub Judge, Paramakudi is set aside. No Costs.