JUDGMENT : (TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J.) This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 21.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.3113 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 19.08.2013 at about 11:30 a.m., the petitioner was waiting at Kadthal Bus stop to board RTC bus to go to Hyderabad and that in the mean time, the driver of seven seater auto bearing No.AP-22- TA-2131 came from Amangal side at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Oxygen Hospital, Alwal for treatment. It is his case that he was an Employee in RTC, earning Rs.30,000/- per month as salary. He sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.2 denied the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and contended that the seven seater auto is falsely implicated in the alleged accident. It is further contended that there is a delay of 13 months from the date of accident in lodging the complaint and that the driver of the seven seater auto bearing No.AP-22-TA-2131 was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the injuries sustained by Syed Murtuza Ahmed S/o Sayed Abdul Rahman in motor accident occurred on 19.08.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver o the crime vehicle seven seater auto bearing No.AP-22-TA-2131? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondent No.2 no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. If so, how much and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined as PW1 and also examined PW2 and PW3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. On behalf of the respondent No.2 no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, dated 21.09.2021 the present appeal is filed. 9. Heard the submission of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the order of the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts. He further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously held that no such accident occurred with the vehicle of respondent No.1 and that the Police failed to register FIR immediately and that the appellant who was the injured was under acute pain and suffering and was undergoing treatment in the hospital and that he was unaware that the Police have not registered a case. He submitted that after getting recovered, the injured approached the Police and then gained knowledge that the compliant was not registered. Thereafter, he approached the Court through a private complaint and the Police have investigated and filed charge sheet against the driver of the seven seater auto. His contention is that the failure of Police in not registering the complaint cannot be put against the petitioner and that the petitioner has already suffered a lot due to the accident and thus, prayed this Court to set aside the orders of the Tribunal. He further prayed to consider the income of the injured as per the Salary Certificate filed by him and award just compensation with regard to the injuries and the disability sustained by him. 11. The learned respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition as there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. 11. The learned respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition as there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. His contention is that the injured is an Employee and is well aware that a complaint has to be made to the Police, and that even after getting discharged from the hospital, there was 13 months delay in filing the complaint and that too he is a resident of Chandrayangutta, but he was taken to Oxygen Hospital which is around 40 kms away from the place of accident which occurred at Kadthal Bustop. His contention is that if at all the petitioner has sustained fracture injuries and was in pain, a common man would take him to the near by hospital, but could not travel such a long distance to undergo treatment. He further argued that the evidence of PW1 is also not convincing to prove the occurrence of the accident and he therefore, prayed to uphold the order and decree of the Tribunal. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1. Whether the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of the seven seater auto bearing No.AP- 22-TA-2131 on 19.08.2013 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what extent and from which of the respondents? 3. Whether order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT NO.1: a) PW1 is the injured witness; his evidence is of prime importance in deciding this issue. There is a serious dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident. The record reveals that there is delay of 13 months in lodging the complaint. The case of the petitioner is that he was under acute pain and that he was immediately taken to the hospital, he was admitted as inpatient and therefore, he was not aware whether the complaint is registered or not, and only after his recovery, he could enquire about the same and approach the Police and on their failure to register a case, he has filed a private complaint. b) To prove his contention, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got examined PW3. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 reveals that he has reiterated the petition averments during his chief examination. b) To prove his contention, the petitioner got examined himself as PW1 and got examined PW3. A perusal of the evidence of PW1 reveals that he has reiterated the petition averments during his chief examination. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he was hospitalized for ‘7’ days. He also stated that he reported to the hospital authorities that he met with an accident, but the hospital authorities have not informed to the Police. The said statement contradicts his statement in chief affidavit. In his chief examination affidavit, he has mentioned that during his inpatient treatment at Oxygen hospital, the hospital authorities have informed the concerned Police Station about the accident and that a Constable came to the hospital and recorded his statement. c) He further stated that after his discharge from Oxygen Hospital, he was again shifted to RTC Hospital, where he was treated conservatively and that since he is under bed rest for ‘8’ months, he could not inform to Police on time. Thus, he falsified his own statement made in chief affidavit which creates a suspicion on his evidence. d) A perusal of the FIR reveals that it is registered on 01.12.2014 while the accident occurred on 19.08.2013 and the contents of FIR reveal that they received a petition from Additional JMFC Kalwakurthy on 01.12.2014 based on a complaint made by the petitioner herein stating that he met with an accident on 19.08.2013. e) Ex.A2 is the charge sheet filed against the driver of seven seater auto bearing No.AP-AP-22-TA-2131. Ex.A3 is the MLC issued by the Oxygen Hospital and in the said MLC, it is mentioned that the petitioner is alleged to have met with an RTA hit by a seven seater auto and that he sustained injuries to the left thigh at around 12:30 noon near Kadthal, Kalwakurthy road. It is also mentioned that he is accompanied by one Swarajyam from Amangal P.S., the Head Constable HC521. It is also mentioned below the said column that it is informed at 8:30 p.m., on 20.08.2013. If the said contents are believed to be true then the complaint must have been registered on the same day, and if at all the Police Constable has accompanied the petitioner, the said fact is not mentioned anywhere in his private complaint, or in his chief affidavit. If the said contents are believed to be true then the complaint must have been registered on the same day, and if at all the Police Constable has accompanied the petitioner, the said fact is not mentioned anywhere in his private complaint, or in his chief affidavit. f) The contents of the private complaint annexed to FIR reveal that immediately after the accident, LW2 and 3 by name Miryala Shiva Kumar and K. Prem Raj cited as eye witnesses in the charge sheet, ran after the auto, but could not catch hold of the auto driver. Thereby, they went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint requesting the Police to take action against the unknown seven seater auto and then, the Police advised them to admit the injured-petitioner in the hospital immediately, thereby, the petitioner was taken to Oxygen Hospital Alwal. If this version of the complaint is examined, it reveals that LW2 and 3 went to the Police Station and have lodged a complaint, but against an unknown seven-seater auto , whereas the petitioner has mentioned the vehicle number in his private complaint. Further, he was taken to Oxygen Hospital for treatment, which is located at around 40 kms from the place of the accident. The reason for going to such a long distance for treatment is not explained by the petitioner, in spite of the contention raised by the respondent. g) It is specifically contended by the respondent-company that there is no necessity for the petitioner to travel such a long distance for undergoing treatment, ignoring many hospitals on the way, and the Tribunal has also expressed suspicion about the said attitude of the petitioner. At least in the appeal, the appellant could have explained the reason for approaching Oxygen Hospital, ignoring the other hospitals as well as the RTC Hospital, as he is an employee of RTC. h) The petitioner is taking multiple stands. On one hand, he says that he was immediately taken to the hospital and that he was under the impression that the Police have already registered a case and also stated that the Police came to the hospital and recorded his statement. In his cross examination again he has taken a different stand stating that none has informed the Police and thus, nobody has come to him while he was in the hospital. In his cross examination again he has taken a different stand stating that none has informed the Police and thus, nobody has come to him while he was in the hospital. i) The contention of the respondent counsel appears to be true because there was no necessity for the petitioner to travel such a long distance for undergoing treatment for his injuries ignoring the other Multi Specialty Hospitals available in and around the place of accident and the place of his residence. The appellant has failed to explain any reason for the same. He further stated that he went to the RTC Hospital after getting discharged from the Oxygen Hospital. He is stated to be an employee of RTC and thus is well versed with the normal procedures. He is not an illiterate person to be ignorant of the course of action that has to be followed in such cases. The record reveals that he was an inpatient only for a week at Oxygen Hospital. Even if his version is believed to be true that immediately after the accident, he was taken to the Oxygen Hospital for treatment, after getting discharged from there, he says that he was admitted in RTC Hospital, but no record is filed to that effect. j) On the other hand he says that he was treated conservatively by the RTC Hospital. However, even after getting discharged, he says he was bedridden for ‘8’ months. The record does not disclose the same. If he was bedridden, he must have been on leave for ‘8’ months. He filed Ex.A13-Medical Certificate issued by Dr. Rohith V. Kaaley an Orthopedic Surgeon of Oxygen Hospital, wherein he is advised for ‘8’ months of rest. The said medical certificate is issued on 09.04.2014, and the contents reveal that his case was reviewed on 09.08.2014, and that the X-Ray showed normal healing of wound. If at all he was reviewed on 09.08.2014, how can it be mentioned in the certificate issued prior to it i.e., on 09.04.2014, is a big question. So the Medical Certificate under Ex.A13 appears to be false on the face of it. If at all he was reviewed on 09.08.2014, how can it be mentioned in the certificate issued prior to it i.e., on 09.04.2014, is a big question. So the Medical Certificate under Ex.A13 appears to be false on the face of it. k) It is his case that he was on bed rest for ‘8’ months, but the Salary Statement furnished by his Department under Ex.A14 shows that he was under Half Pay Leave from September to December for ‘11’ days in January 2014, after which he is shown to be attending the Office. It is further revealed that he was paid full amount from February 2014. Thus, this also falsifies his contention that he was on bed rest for ‘8’ months, when he has attended the Office from February 2014 and has taken full salary for the said period. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 the injured petitioner itself is surmounted with suspicion and cannot be believed. Hence, it is held that the petitioner failed to prove the occurrence of the accident as narrated by him. l) Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Kusum Lata and Others Vs. Satbir and others , [ 2011 ACJ 926 ] ; to prove that delay in lodging FIR to show that in a case relating to Motor Accident Claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial and it has further discussed about the decision of Apex Court in Bimala Devi Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation , 2009 ACJ 1725 in which it was held that the claimants were merely to establish their case on the touch stone of preponderance of probability. The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt could not have been applied. This Court is bound by the said principle laid down by the Apex Court, but in the present case, it is not the proof beyond reasonable doubt that is expected. But even on preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner could not establish his case; as discussed supra, the petitioner has fumbled in many ways. Even applying the said principle; and on prudent application of mind, the narration of the petitioner in his complaint, in his evidence before the Court and the exhibits filed by him under Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 disprove the case of the petitioner. Even applying the said principle; and on prudent application of mind, the narration of the petitioner in his complaint, in his evidence before the Court and the exhibits filed by him under Ex.A13 and Ex.A14 disprove the case of the petitioner. Therefore, it is held that even on preponderance of probabilities, the petitioner could not prove his case. Thus, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. Point No.2: In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 15. Point No.3: In view of the discussion held supra, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal do not need any interference and therefore, the same is upheld. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. 16 . Point No.4:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the order and decree dated 21.09.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.3113 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.