JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.144/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the amount of compensation granted by Award dated 09/05/2019. The respondents herein are the claim petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 respectively in the petition. In this appeal, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petition. 2. According to the claim petitioner, on 24/03/2016 at about 09:00 p.m., while he was walking through Kottappalla – Kodiyamkunnu public road and when reached near Kottappalla grandhshala, jeep bearing registration no.KL-07/J- 3220 driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner in great speed knocked him down, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. 3. The second respondent-owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 4. The first respondent-driver filed written statement denying negligence on his part. 5. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy, but denying negligence on the part of the first respondent. The averments in the petition regarding age, income, injuries, treatment underwent, expenses met for the treatment and disability were denied. 6. Before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claim petitioner. No documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 7. The Tribunal on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.2,75,640/- together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. Aggrieved by the Award, the third respondent-insurer has come up in appeal. 8. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 9. Heard both sides. 10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the actual vehicle involved in the incident is jeep bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611 as mentioned in the private complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate concerned. 9. Heard both sides. 10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the third respondent/insurer that the actual vehicle involved in the incident is jeep bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611 as mentioned in the private complaint filed before the Judicial First Class Magistrate concerned. However, in Ext.A7 final report, the vehicle number has been changed fraudulently because the vehicle stated in the complaint did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. The vehicle subsequently added has a valid insurance policy and hence to get the insurance amount, the vehicle number has been changed and a false final report filed. As the vehicle actually involved is not insured with the third respondent-insurer, the insurer cannot be held liable for the amount and hence the Tribunal went wrong in directing the insurer to deposit the amount. Per contra, it was quite persuasively submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that it is well settled that the final report filed by the police in the crime is prima facie proof of negligence. In the case on hand, the police after investigation filed Ext.A7 final report which proves the registration number of the vehicle involved in the accident. To prove Ext.A7, the claim petitioner also examined the investigating officer, namely, PW1. Therefore, the claim petitioner has discharged his burden. If the third respondent/insurer had any grievance/complaint against Ext.A7 final report, they ought to have adduced evidence to disprove the same. Having not done so, the Tribunal rightly relying on Ext.A7 found the offending vehicle to be jeep bearing registration no.KL- 07/J-3220 and proceeded to award compensation. There is no infirmity calling for an interference by this Court, goes the argument. 11. The accident in this case is alleged to have taken place on 24/03/2016. A private complaint dated 08/08/2016 is seen filed before the Magistrate concerned, which was forwarded under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on the basis of which crime no.532/2016, Nattukal Police Station, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered on 18/08/2016 at 18:16 hours. The FIR and the FIS have been marked as Ext.A3. The private complaint is seen filed by the nephew of the claim petitioner. The registration number of the offending vehicle in the complaint is stated to be KL-09-G- 4611. The FIR and the FIS have been marked as Ext.A3. The private complaint is seen filed by the nephew of the claim petitioner. The registration number of the offending vehicle in the complaint is stated to be KL-09-G- 4611. In the case diary, that is seen marked as Ext.A1, the investigating officer says that on 19/08/2016, the witnesses were questioned and then the complainant stated that it was by mistake the registration number of the offending vehicle was referred to as KL-09-G-4611 in the complaint. Now the question is - was it a bonafide or genuine mistake committed in the complaint in referring to the registration number of the vehicle as KL-09-G- 4611 in the place of KL-07/J-3220. Let me examine. 12. As noticed earlier, in the complaint which was treated as the FIS as well as in the FIR registered on the basis of the same marked as Ext.A3, the registration number of the offending vehicle is stated to be KL-09-G-4611. In the written statement filed by the third respondent-insurer, it was contended thus- “This respondent denied that vehicle bearing Reg No. KL 07 J 3220 owned by second respondent and allegedly driven by the 1 st respondent involved in this accident. In the complaint filed by the petitioner through his relative before the honorable JFCM Mannarkkad the vehicle number shown as KL 09 G 4611. The date of alleged accident was on 24.03.2016. The complaint filed before the court is only on 08.08.2016. There is no proper explanation in the charge sheet for the difference occurred in respect of the vehicle number. So this respondent is not liable to any compensation to the petitioner. The vehicle No. KL. 07 J 3220 had been insured with this respondent company under a valid policy No. 76020131150200023382 for the period from 17.01.2016 to 16.01.2017 subject to the terms and conditions exceptions and limitation stipulated therein and subject to the M.V.Act and Rules. … … …” 12.1. The third respondent-insurer filed I.A.No.522/2019 before the Tribunal for directing the first respondent-driver to produce the registration certificate, policy and permit of the vehicle bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611. This application is seen allowed on 20/02/2019 by the Tribunal. However, the documents were never produced before the Tribunal. … … …” 12.1. The third respondent-insurer filed I.A.No.522/2019 before the Tribunal for directing the first respondent-driver to produce the registration certificate, policy and permit of the vehicle bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611. This application is seen allowed on 20/02/2019 by the Tribunal. However, the documents were never produced before the Tribunal. In the appeal, the third respondent-insurer has filed I.A.No.4/2020 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to receive additional documents, that is, the policy of insurance issued by United India Insurance Company Ltd. for vehicle bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611 for the period from 20/12/2014 to 19/12/2015 and copy of the registration particulars of the said vehicle. The application is allowed and the documents shall stand marked as Exts.A12 and A13 respectively. The registration particulars marked as Ext.A13 shows that the owner of vehicle bearing registration no.KL-09-G-4611 is the first respondent herein. Ext.A13 certificate of insurance shows that the vehicle was insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd., not a party here, for the period from 20/12/2014 to 19/12/2015. The accident in this case took place on 24/03/2016. Therefore, it is apparent that the said vehicle did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. It is in this background, the evidence on record needs to be appreciated. 13. In the complaint filed before the Magistrate concerned, there is a mere statement that though information was given to the police regarding the accident, due to the undue influence of the first respondent/driver of the offending vehicle, no action was taken by the police. In this context, I refer to the dictum in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. , 2015 KHC 4242: (2015) 6 SCC 287 , in which the Apex Court held that applications under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. It has been held that when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed, the filing of applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) must be clearly spelt out and the copies of the same also produced along with the complaint. It has been held that when an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is filed, the filing of applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) must be clearly spelt out and the copies of the same also produced along with the complaint. The Apex Court made it clear that the warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. should be supported by an affidavit, is to make the person making the application conscious and also to see that no false affidavit is filed. This is because once an affidavit is found to be false, the complainant will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This would also deter him/her to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 14. In the case on hand, no such affidavit is seen filed along with the complaint. As noticed earlier, there is a mere statement in the complaint that though the police was informed of the accident, no action was taken. No details are given. No copy of the information alleged to have been given to the police regarding the accident under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. has been produced. If the police had not taken any action on the basis of the information given under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., resort to the remedy under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. ought to have been made. Here, the complainant has no case that resort to the remedy under Section 154(3) had been made. From the materials on record it is not clear as to the date on which the private complaint was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The complaint is dated 08/08/2016. The police on receiving the complaint is seen to have registered the crime on 18/08/2016. The accident in this case took place on 24/03/2016. Therefore, the complaint is seen filed after a delay of nearly 5 months after the accident. No reasons are given for the inordinate delay in filing the complaint. 16. Referring to the testimony of PW1, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that merely because PW1 did not answer a question, fraud cannot be assumed or presumed. The burden was on the insurer to prove fraud and that the final report is false, in which endeavour, they have miserably failed, argued the counsel. 17. 16. Referring to the testimony of PW1, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the claim petitioner that merely because PW1 did not answer a question, fraud cannot be assumed or presumed. The burden was on the insurer to prove fraud and that the final report is false, in which endeavour, they have miserably failed, argued the counsel. 17. Here as noticed earlier, the insurer in their written statement has disputed the involvement of the vehicle with registration no.KL-07/J-3220. To substantiate the same, they also took steps for directing the first respondent to produce the RC particulars and the insurance policy of the vehicle bearing registration no.KL-09/G-4611 referred to in the complaint. When PW1 was cross examined, no explanation is given as to why no investigation was conducted regarding the vehicle referred to in the complaint. The claim petitioner never entered the box to prove that the vehicle number referred to in the complaint was a mistake. The insurer can prove his case or bring in probabilities in support of his case through cross examination of the witness of claim petitioner also. Here the testimony of PW1 is quite relevant and material. He has no explanation as to why he did not conduct any investigation regarding the vehicle mentioned in the complaint. Going by his testimony and Ext.A1 case diary, it appears that Ext.A7 final report was filed based merely on the statements given by the witnesses of the claim petitioner. No independent investigation seems to have been conducted by PW1. The materials on record probabilise the case of the third respondent-insurer that realizing that vehicle bearing registration no.KL-09/G-4611 referred to in the private complaint owned by the first respondent-driver did not have a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident, the vehicle was changed and the vehicle of the second respondent brought in to the picture as the same has a valid insurance policy. It appears that the offending vehicle is actually KL-09 G-4611 and as the third respondent is not the insurer of the said vehicle, they cannot be made liable to indemnify the insured. 18. Be that as it may, the fact that the accident took place in which the claim petitioner sustained injuries, is not disputed. The first respondent in his written statement does not dispute the fact that he was at the wheel when the accident took place. 18. Be that as it may, the fact that the accident took place in which the claim petitioner sustained injuries, is not disputed. The first respondent in his written statement does not dispute the fact that he was at the wheel when the accident took place. The negligence of the 1 st respondent alleged is not disputed by third respondent/insurer. However, as the vehicle bearing registration no. KL-09 G-4611 was not insured with the third respondent or with any other insurance company, they cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, the first respondent. Hence the liability to pay the compensation would be on the first respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle. The third respondent/insurer in the aforesaid circumstances is exonerated of the liability. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.