JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal filed under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity) by the appellant/Insurer, challenging the judgment and award dtd. 29/2/2012 passed in M.V.C.No.667/2011 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). 2. Brief facts of the case is as follows: The petitioner before the Tribunal (first respondent herein), on 14/10/2010 at about 2.00 p.m., was proceeding on his Kinetic Honda bearing registration No.KA-05/EX-3529 and when he reached near Vaddarapalya, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-32-5813 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Kinetic Honda of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered fracture of right ankle and he was admitted to Rajashekar hospital for treatment. Claiming compensation for the injuries he has sustained in the accident, he has filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 3. Before the Tribunal, the claim was contested by the insurer alone. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself and the treating Doctor as PW-1 and PW-2 and relied upon Exs.P1 to P10 and on behalf of the insurer, one witness was examined as RW-1 and relied upon Exs.R1 and R2. 4. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1, 32, 400.00 with 6% interest per annum fastening liability on the insurer. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer is before this court. 5. The appeal is filed on the following grounds: The petitioner/claimant has reported before the hospital that he had a skid fall from the bike when he was admitted to Rajashekar Hospital, wherein before the Tribunal he has made a claim that a lorry bearing registration no.KA-32-5813 had hit him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. The fact alleged is contrary to the evidence placed. The petitioner has made fraud, the Tribunal failed to notice the same, the Tribunal failed to note the settled principle of law that the noting of the Doctor should be looked into and mere filing of charge sheet is not a decisive factor. The fact alleged is contrary to the evidence placed. The petitioner has made fraud, the Tribunal failed to notice the same, the Tribunal failed to note the settled principle of law that the noting of the Doctor should be looked into and mere filing of charge sheet is not a decisive factor. There is a delay of 10 days in filing the FIR, involvement of the lorry in question was not proved before the Tribunal and ignoring all these aspects, the Tribunal has passed the award, fastening liability against the Insurance Company which needs interference. 6. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the claimant and owner of the vehicle, though served but unrepresented. 7. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that soon after the accident, the petitioner was taken to Rajashekar Hospital where he has given a history of the accident on the very day that he skidded from his Kinetic Honda and fell on the road resulting in the injuries for which he was treated by the Rajashekar hospital. On 24/10/2010, lorry in question has been invented and a false complaint has been filed and thereby by misleading the Tribunal, claim has been filed and inspite of the evidence explaining the alleged accident as 'skid and fall from the Kinetic Honda', the defence is ignored, the evidence is not considered by the Tribunal and same is against the settled principles of law. 8. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Ex.P1/FIR, Ex.P6/Discharge Summary and Ex.R2/MLC register extract and also spot sketch as Ex.P3. As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is a reference in Ex.P6/Discharge Summary issued by Rajashekar hospital, which is relied upon by the petitioner, which refers as follows: "This 50 yr old male was admitted with an alleged h/o RTA, skid and fell down from the bike on 14/10/2010 at around 3 pm and sustained injury to right knee, right ankle and left elbow." 9. Ex.R2 is the MLC Register extract issued by the Rajshekar Hospital wherein the history of the accident is referred to as follows: "Alleged h/o RTA, skid and fall from the bike near NICE road Pinkipura on 14/10/2010 at around 3 pm. Sustain injury to right knee, right ankle." 10. Ex.R2 is the MLC Register extract issued by the Rajshekar Hospital wherein the history of the accident is referred to as follows: "Alleged h/o RTA, skid and fall from the bike near NICE road Pinkipura on 14/10/2010 at around 3 pm. Sustain injury to right knee, right ankle." 10. From the reading of Ex.P6 and Ex.R2, the history of the accident met with by the petitioner did point out a different history. Hence, it is very relevant to consider the evidence of the Doctor, whom the petitioner has relied upon to prove the disability. PW-2 Dr.Shivarajaiah is the Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Rajshekar hospital. He has given evidence in the form of affidavit evidence that having treated the petitioner at Rajashekar hospital and also assessing the disability of 8% for the whole body on account of the ankle injuries sustained by the petitioner. During the course of cross- examination, the Doctor has specifically admitted and his statement is as follows: "The patient has intimated to me about the RTA. As per case sheet recorded the petitioner has intimated to me that, he skids and fell from the scooter." 11. Doctor has also admitted in the cross examination that "It is true to say that if the patient is fell down and slipped himself, he may sustain injuries as mentioned in the wound certificate. Our hospital registered the MLC." Hence, PW-2 has not been treated as hostile, nor there is any cross- examination on behalf of the petitioner. In North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation - vs- Gourabai and Others, (2009) 15 SCC 165 . the Hon'ble Apex Court held at para 3 that: "3. The effect of the evidence of the doctor and Exhibit R-1 does not appear to have been looked into by MACT and the High Court. MACT did not place reliance on the document Ext.R-1 on the ground that the brother of the injured stated that he did not know what was written in the document and his signature was taken on one page. This conclusion overlooks the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct." 12. As discussed above, the medical evidence did establish that the injured sustained injury due to skid and fall from his Kinetic Honda. 13. This conclusion overlooks the fact that a doctor will not take a signature on a piece of paper mentioning something which is not correct." 12. As discussed above, the medical evidence did establish that the injured sustained injury due to skid and fall from his Kinetic Honda. 13. Ex.P3 is the sketch pertains to the accident spot, which refers Begur-Koppa road, but in the said sketch, there is no mention about existence of NICE road, wherein the complaint and also the charge sheet allege that the accident took place near NICE road at Vaddarapalya. Hence, there is a clear contradiction as to the place of accident and also the history of the accident spoken to by PW-2/the treating Doctor, did point out that the petitioner has sustained injuries due to skid and fall from his Kinetic Honda. If the medical evidence speaks so, then the petitioner has to prove the accident as claimed that the lorry bearing registration No.KA-32- 5813 hit against his Kinetic Honda. The petitioner though admits that front portion of Kinetic Honda was damaged, but he has not produced any document to show any damage caused to his Kinetic Honda. Thus, the evidence relied upon by the petitioner himself did point out that the petitioner has sustained ankle injury on account of skid and fall from his own Kinetic Honda. 14. In support of his contentions, the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this court in the matter of New India Assurance Co.Ltd. -vs- Venkataramana, 2006 ACJ 1778 KAR. to the effect that mere filing of charge sheet is not a decisive factor. The evidence on record did point out different reason for the injury sustained. Hence, mere filing of charge sheet against the driver of lorry has no consequence. 15. I have carefully perused the impugned judgment wherein all these aspects have been placed before the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal ignored the said aspects taking into consideration that the claim under Sec. 166 of the M.V.Act is a beneficial legislation. Under the said guise, the Tribunal has carried away ignoring the fact that the petitioner has sustained injury in his own motor vehicle by skid and fall and inspite of the accident took place on 14/10/2010, he did not file any complaint till 24/10/2010 for the reason that his own vehicle has been involved. Under the said guise, the Tribunal has carried away ignoring the fact that the petitioner has sustained injury in his own motor vehicle by skid and fall and inspite of the accident took place on 14/10/2010, he did not file any complaint till 24/10/2010 for the reason that his own vehicle has been involved. During the said period, much water has been flown, local friends have come to the aid of the petitioner. Hence, the claim based upon different set of story, which has no evidence to support. 16. It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider the genuineness of the accident and history of the injury that the petitioner has sustained before proceeding to assess the claim. But in the instant case, there is a total miscarriage of justice on account of lack of application of mind on the part of the Tribunal and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim any compensation as against the lorry. If he has to claim anything, he should claim against his own vehicle. However, he himself is the owner of the Kinetic Honda, he cannot claim compensation against his own fault and against him only and therefore, the impugned award passed by the Tribunal suffers from illegality and hence, calls interference. Hence, the claim made by the petitioner before the Tribunal is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and award dtd. 29/2/2012 in M.V.C.No.677/2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City, is hereby set aside. The petition filed by the petitioner/1st respondent herein under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is hereby dismissed. Any statutory deposit, if made by the appellant, shall be returned to the appellant.