JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are filed under Sec. -173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'MV Act' for brevity) challenging the judgment and award dtd. 23/10/2017, passed in M.V.C.No.118/2017, on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge MACT, at Srirangapatna, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for brevity). MFA No.1178/2018 is filed by the appellantinsurance company, questioning the liability fixed by the Tribunal to pay the compensation. MFA No.6815/2018 is filed by the appellantclaimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Brief facts: 2. That on 26/11/2016 at about 2.00 a.m., near Basavanahally Village, T.N.Pura Taluk, Mysore District, when the claimant was proceeding in a motor bike bearing registration No.KA-11-EC-8094 as a pillion rider, ridden by its rider by name Mahadeva, at that time, the rider of the said bike rode the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and lost control over the bike and thereby the accident occurred. As a result of which, the claimant fell down from the motor bike and sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Thereafter, he was admitted to Cauvery Hospital, Mysuru and was treated for the said injuries suffered. 3. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant under Sec. -166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the petition in part, and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,49,230.00 along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal held respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant - claimant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads is on lesser side. Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - insurance company in the connected appeal submitted that the present case is filed fraudulently, just to make claim against the insurance company. That there is a delay of 47 days in lodging the complaint. Therefore, seeks for enhancement of the compensation. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant - insurance company in the connected appeal submitted that the present case is filed fraudulently, just to make claim against the insurance company. That there is a delay of 47 days in lodging the complaint. It is stated that the accident has occurred on 26/11/2016 and a complaint was lodged on 11/1/2017, but there is no proper explanation for delay in lodging the complaint. Even if the claimant was unconscious in the hospital and could not come to the Police Station for lodging complaint, but the fact remains that the son of the claimant was riding the motor cycle and he had also sustained some injuries. But there is no iota of evidence regarding what happened to the rider of the motor cycle and whether the claimant's son made any effort to get lodged the complaint before the Police. Therefore, submitted upon bare perusal of the complaint, it is proved fact that the complaint lodged before the Police is for making a claim against the insurance company by falsely implicating the motor cycle. Therefore, considering the entirety of the case at its preponderance of probabilities, it is submitted that a false complaint is lodged before the Police to make claim against the insurer of the motor cycle. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal of the insurance company by setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that just because there is a delay in lodging the complaint that cannot be made a ground to reject the claim petition. Further, submitted that there may be various reasons for the delay in lodging complaint belatedly. That could be considered and appreciated in the context of the facts and circumstances involved in each case. Therefore, submitted that the claimant had sustained severe head injuries and he was unconscious in the hospital for 33 days and thereafter was discharged from the hospital and started coming to normalcy in his life and thereafter lodged the complaint before the Police. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is quite natural that there is some delay in lodging the complaint and the claim petition cannot be disbelieved on this ground. 8. Therefore, under these circumstances, it is quite natural that there is some delay in lodging the complaint and the claim petition cannot be disbelieved on this ground. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant - claimant placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan And Others, reported in 2011 Acci. C.R.420 (SC) and in the case of Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 . Therefore, submitted that in all its preponderance of probabilities, when the case is considered and upon perusal of the material on record, it is proved that the claimant has suffered injuries in the said road traffic accident. The Hospital authorities have sent MLC intimation to the Police Station. If the Police had not come to the hospital for recording FIR, then it amounts to dereliction of duty on the part of the Police and then constitutes to be a ground for rejecting the claim of the claimant. Therefore, prays for dismissal of appeal of the insurance company and further submitted that the appeal of the appellant-claimant may be allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which is on the lower side. REGARDING FRAUD ALLEGED: 9. It is stated that the accident occurred on 26/11/2006 and the complaint was lodged on 11/1/2017. There is a delay of 47 days in filing the complaint. The reason stated for the delay is that the claimant had sustained injuries and was admitted to hospital. Considering these aspects and also considering Exhibits-P2 and P3, viz., copy of the complaint and copy of the spot mahazar respectively, shows that the son of the claimant was riding the motor cycle. Therefore, with all these factual matrix in the present case, the facts of the cases in Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others reported in 2011 Acci.C.R.420 (SC), the judgment of Bimla Devi and Others vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 2819 , wherein, are to be considered, it was held that the delay in lodging the FIR cannot be made a ground to deny justice to the victim. That in cases of delay, courts are required to examine evidence with closer scrutiny and in doing so contents of FIR should also be scrutinized more carefully, if courts finds that there is no indication of fabrication or it has not been concocted or engineered to implicate innocent persons, then even if there is a delay in lodging FIR, the claim case cannot be dismissed merely on that ground. But in the present case, there is no dispute about the factum of the accident and the injuries sustained, the only dispute is regarding delay in lodging the complaint. It is quite natural phenomena that the criminal law is set into motion on registration of FIR. The complaint was lodged on 11/1/2017 around 2.30 p.m., and on the same day spot mahazar was also drawn. Exhibit-R1 is the copy of the MLC register extract stating to have sent to the Police Station at Mysuru, since the claimant was taking treatment at the Government Hospital at Mysuru. It is presumed that the son of the claimant was a major at the time of the accident and knowing the worldly affairs, then the arrangement can be made for lodging complaint before the Police with anybody else's help. But there are no findings of the Tribunal with regard to the same and whether the son of the claimant has not been examined. Therefore, the complaint averments and the delay in lodging the complaints appear, is just to make a claim against the insurance company. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances involved in this case there is no evidence placed before the Tribunal as to what happened to the son of the claimant. On reading of the MLC extract there is no information as to how many days the claimant was admitted as inpatient or only taken treatment as out patient. Therefore, on this analysis it is proved that the complaint is lodged before the Police only just to make a claim against the insurance company for receiving compensation. 11. Therefore, in the present case what can be inferred is that it is not a genuine one. It is true that in MLC extract is produced, but it cannot be accepted as it is only an afterthought, because there is no details about the accident, type of vehicle etc., it is only stated that the claimant fell down from bike and sustained injuries. It is true that in MLC extract is produced, but it cannot be accepted as it is only an afterthought, because there is no details about the accident, type of vehicle etc., it is only stated that the claimant fell down from bike and sustained injuries. Furthermore, in the same casesheet while it is mentioned that the claimant was chronic alcoholic and smoker. Therefore, the probability is raised by the insurance company that the claimant himself has driven the motorcycle and has had self-fall. In this regard the probability raised by the appellant-insurance company cannot be brushed aside as there is force in the said submission. Therefore, on all these preponderance of probabilities it is proved that the involvement of motor bike bearing registration No.KA-11-EC-8094 is found to be suspicious one and this is not only mere suspicion but affecting to the core of the claim proceedings. The factum of the accident, injuries sustained in the said accident and the involvement of the offending vehicle are two different aspects to be considered. Just because the factum of accident is proved that cannot be always inferred that the offending vehicle stated in the accident is involved. Therefore, not only the factum of accident occurred can be considered but also evidence ought to be weighed and shifted, whether the involvement of the offending vehicle is proved on its preponderance of probabilities. 12. Therefore, even though the present case is considered on all its preponderance of probabilities, on bare perusal it is proved that the complaint is filed before the police is for the purpose of just to make claim against the appellant / insurance company. Therefore, in this regard the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is found to be perverse and contrary to the evidence on record, thus liable to be set-aside. Resultantly, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. MFA No.1178/2018 filed by the appellantinsurance company, is hereby ALLOWED. ii. MFA No.6815/2018 is filed by the appellant-claimant is DISMISSED. iii. The impugned judgment and award dtd. 23/10/2017, passed in M.V.C.No.118/2017, on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge MACT, at Srirangapatna, is set-aside. Resultantly, the claim petition is dismissed. iv. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. ii. MFA No.6815/2018 is filed by the appellant-claimant is DISMISSED. iii. The impugned judgment and award dtd. 23/10/2017, passed in M.V.C.No.118/2017, on the file of the Addl. Senior Civil Judge MACT, at Srirangapatna, is set-aside. Resultantly, the claim petition is dismissed. iv. The amount in deposit shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. v. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. vi. Costs made easy.