JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 03.09.2019 in MVC.No.90/2015 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M. & Additional Mact-VII, Shivamogga (for short 'Tribunal'). 2. MFA.No.681/2020 is filed by the insurer and MFA.No.640/2021 is filed by the claimant. Hence, both the appeals are taken up together for disposal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 15.09.2013 at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on his motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-14-CE-2854 and his friend one Annappa was riding it. They met with an accident opposite to Eshwara Temple, Arakere, Shivamogga, due to rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle bearing registration No.KA-14-EB-7825 (for short offending vehicle). As a result, both the rider and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant being pillion rider suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. With these reasons, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 was the rider, respondent No.2 was the owner and respondent No.3 was the insurer of the offending motor cycle. Respondent No.3 denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also filed additional objections contending that the offending vehicle was falsely implicated in this case to claim compensation. It denied its liability to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues, for its determination. 6. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and CW-1 and marked 16 documents, as Exs.P-1 to P-16. The respondent examined one witness as RW-1 and marked document as Ex.R1. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties held that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending motor cycle by its rider and awarded following amount of compensation: 8. The Tribunal also held that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 10. The following point emerges for my determination: i. Whether accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle as contended in the petition? ii. Whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? iii. What order? 11. PW-1 is the alleged victim of the accident. 9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both the sides. 10. The following point emerges for my determination: i. Whether accident occurred due to involvement of the offending vehicle as contended in the petition? ii. Whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? iii. What order? 11. PW-1 is the alleged victim of the accident. In his evidence, he has reiterated the petition averments and he has produced the documents at Exs.P1-P16. The petitioner also examined the medical officer as CW-1 and 3 documents were marked as CWs-1 to 3. CW-1 corroborated the evidence of PW-1 in respect of injuries and permanent disability suffered by PW-1. 12. PW-1, in his cross-examination, stated that he was a pillion rider on his own motorcycle, which was being ridden by his brother-in-law, Annappa. The accident occurred in front of Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital of Arakare Village . Initially, PW-1 stated that Annappa did not sustain any injuries; but, he later stated that Annappa suffered minor injuries. PW-1 further stated that immediately after the accident, he was taken to Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital by an auto driver, and he informed the doctor about the manner in which the accident occurred and how he sustained his injuries. PW-1 admitted that the accident occurred due to a collision between two vehicles. He also mentioned that he got discharged from Narayana Hospital against medical advice . Later that night, he was shifted to Wenlock Hospital at Mangaluru by his mother, brother-in-law Annappa, and his uncle. At Wenlock Hospital, he gave the history of the accident. PW-1 lodged the complaint 86 days after the accident . He explained the delay by stating that the rider of the offending motorcycle had assured him that he would bear the medical expenses, due to the same he did not file a complaint immediately. However, when the rider of offending vehicle failed to pay the compensation, he decided to lodge the complaint. He also stated that the offending vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind, causing it to be thrown forward about 100 feet, leading to both of them falling down. He denied the suggestion that he had told the doctors at Wenlock Hospital that he sustained injuries due to his motorcycle skidding. He also stated that the offending vehicle hit his motorcycle from behind, causing it to be thrown forward about 100 feet, leading to both of them falling down. He denied the suggestion that he had told the doctors at Wenlock Hospital that he sustained injuries due to his motorcycle skidding. It was suggested to him during cross-examination that he was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident and that he fell due to a skid, and that he falsely implicated the offending motorcycle in order to claim compensation ,which was denied by him. PW-1 further stated that on the day of the accident, the police seized his motorcycle, and while he was admitted at Wenlock Hospital, his relative got the motorcycle released from the police station. 13. During the cross-examination, PW-1 answered several questions which created doubt on his credibility. 14. CW-1 was examined through Court Commissioner. He stated the details of the treatment provided to PW-1 and also confirmed that the claimant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 28% to the whole body . In his cross-examination, he admitted that, at the instance of the insured, he did not send an intimation to the concerned police station by registering the case as an MLC. In further cross-examination, he denied the suggestions of the learned advocate for Respondent No. 3. 15. Ex.P7 is given by Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya Multi Speciality Hospital, wherein history of the injury is stated as "15.09.2013 at 12.45 noon" however, the details of the accident are not mentioned. 16. Ex.P14 (discharge summary) and Ex.C1 - in-patient case sheet) reveal that the patient gave a history of the accident as a skid and fall from the bike on 15.09.2013 at 12:00 PM at Shivamogga. In the pleadings or evidence of PW-1, there is no explanation as to why a different version of the injury was given to the doctor at Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru, on 16.09.2013. It is also not the evidence of CW- 1 that PW-1 was unconscious or unable to give a proper history due to the pain. PW-1 appears to have given the history of injuries both at Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya and at Wenlock Hospital. But, the records from Wenlock Hospital do not indicate that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending motorcycle. 17. PW-1 appears to have given the history of injuries both at Sahyadri Narayana Hrudayalaya and at Wenlock Hospital. But, the records from Wenlock Hospital do not indicate that the accident occurred due to the involvement of the offending motorcycle. 17. During the course of arguments, even when the Court enquired, the learned counsel for the claimant regarding the said inconsistencies he was unable to give any explanation about it. It raises serious doubts about the involvement of the offending motorcycle in the accident. 18. The accident occurred on 15.09.2013, at around 12.45 pm on the main road. The petitioner or the rider of the motor cycle or any other eye witness did not inform about the accident to the police. PW-1 in his cross-examination admits that on the day of accident his motor cycle was seized by the police and on the next day his relatives took the custody of the vehicle from the police station. This clearly shows that the police were aware of the accident on the very same day. It is difficult to believe that the police would seize the vehicle involved in the accident without registering an FIR. 19. Undisputedly, the complaint - Ex.P2 was lodged at the police station on 10.12.2013 by Shyamu shettigar, the father of the claimant. According to Ex.P2, the rider of the offending motorcycle informed the claimant that he would bear the medical expenses and requested him not to lodge a complaint immediately after the accident. But, later on, the rider did not contact him or paid medical expenses, therefore, the complaint was lodged on 10.12.2013. It is not the claimant’s case that the rider of the offending motorcycle was a resident of the same village where the claimant resides or well known person to him. Given these facts, it is difficult to believe that the claimant or his parents would trust an unknown person and fail to report the accident to the nearest police station, especially when the claimant sustained grievous injuries. 20. The claimant has not produced motor vehicle inspection report. According to the evidence of PW-1, offending motor vehicle hit the motor cycle from back side due to the impact his motor cycle went ahead about 100 feet and thereafter fell down. 21. 20. The claimant has not produced motor vehicle inspection report. According to the evidence of PW-1, offending motor vehicle hit the motor cycle from back side due to the impact his motor cycle went ahead about 100 feet and thereafter fell down. 21. It is worth to note that rider of the motor cycle by name Annappa, did not sustain any injuries, despite the alleged hard impact by the offending vehicle on the motorcycle on which both were traveling. No evidence was given by PW-1 regarding the seizure of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.2. The above said facts raises serious doubts regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the insurer, the story of the accident appears to be fabricated. Mere filing of a charge sheet against the rider of the offending motorcycle is not sufficient to accept the claimant’s version of the accident and award compensation. As submitted by the insurer collusion between claimant and owner of alleged offending vehicle cannot be ruled out. The facts narrated above clearly indicate possible collusion between the claimant and Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. 22. The medical records show that the claimant informed the medical officer that he skidded and fell from the motorcycle, which appears to be the true account of the incident, as reflected in the Wenlock Hospital records. It seems that the claimant fabricated the story of the accident solely to claim compensation. The Tribunal has failed to properly consider the evidence on record. The filing of a charge sheet by the police alone is not a valid reason to accept the contention of the claimant or the police When the contentions of the claimant is doubtful. It is true that in normal circumstances, the Tribunal may accept the charge sheet as prima facie proof of the accident. But in this case, there is sufficient material, including admissions by PW-1 and CW-1 during cross-examination, to disbelieve the allegations of charge sheet. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the said evidence and decided the case. 23. The motor vehicle compensation is a benevolent legislation aimed at compensating the victims of the accident. Under those circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous, which needs interference by this Court. 24. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the said evidence and decided the case. 23. The motor vehicle compensation is a benevolent legislation aimed at compensating the victims of the accident. Under those circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous, which needs interference by this Court. 24. Since the claimant failed to prove that he sustained injury in the vehicle accident, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore impugned judgment and award is set aside and proceed to pass the following: ORDER: i. MFA.No.681/2020 is allowed. ii. MFA.No.640/2021 stands dismissed. iii. The impugned judgment and award dated 03.09.2019 passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM and Additional MACT-VII, Shivamogga in MVC.No.90/2015 is set aside. iv. The claimant petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, is dismissed. v. Amount in deposit, if any, by the appellant in MFA.No.681/2020 shall be transmitted to Tribunal for refund to the insurer, on due acknowledgement. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records along with the copy of the judgment to the Tribunal.