JUDGMENT : UMESH M ADIGA, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2014, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Hassan (for short “the Tribunal”) in MVC No.189/2010, seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimant that, on 30.09.2009 at about 8:45 pm., when he was crossing B.M. Road at Hassan, he met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the car bearing registration No.KA-13-M-3650 by its driver. In the said accident, he sustained injuries to legs, hip, head, hands and fracture of hip joint and suffered permanent disability. He took treatment as an inpatient and spent substantial amount towards medical expenses. The claimant was aged about 34 years, he was an Auto driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered functional disability. With these reasons, the claimant has prayed for awarding of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte and respondent No.2-New India Assurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement and it has denied the contentions of the claim petitioner. It also denied its liability to pay the compensation. Further, it has stated that, there is a delay of four (4) days in filing the complaint. Time of the accident is also not consistent. There is no visible damage to the offending vehicle. All these facts indicate that the vehicle was falsely implicated in the accident. 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 PW.2 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. Respondent No.2 examined one witness as RW.1 and marked documents as Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties, held that the accident did not occur in the manner stated in the claim petition and dismissed the claim petition without assessing the compensation. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer and perused the material placed before the Court. 9. 7. The Tribunal after hearing both parties, held that the accident did not occur in the manner stated in the claim petition and dismissed the claim petition without assessing the compensation. 8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the claimant as well as the insurer and perused the material placed before the Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and has disbelieved the claimant's evidence solely on the basis of Ex.P.11. Ex.R1-Authorization letter indicates that initially the car hit the two wheeler and thereafter, hit the claimant. Mere delay is not a valid ground to doubt the occurrence of the accident. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal is erroneous. He further contended that the claimant suffered fracture of the hip bone, was admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery. He has suffered permanent disability. In this regard, PW.2-Dr.Lakshmisha T., the treating doctor, who assessed the extent of disability was examined. With these reasons, he prayed to award just and reasonable amount of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there was a delay of four days in filing the complaint and the same was not properly explained. Ex.P11-MLC extract is produced by the claimant to show that the accident occurred between the car and two wheeler. It is not clear as to whether the claimant was riding the said two wheeler or if he was a pillion rider. There is no damage to the vehicle involved in the accident. Even Ex.P11 indicates that he was under the influence of alcohol. These facts indicate that he sustained injury in some other incident and just to claim the compensation, the offending vehicle was falsely implicated, in collusion with the owner and the concerned police. The Tribunal has considered all these facts and has discussed it in detail in its impugned judgment and thus, has rightly dismissed the claim petition. The said finding would therefore not call for any interference and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 11. Following points arise for consideration : "1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? 3 . What order?". 12. PW.1 in his evidence has stated the manner in which the accident occurred. 11. Following points arise for consideration : "1. Whether the Tribunal has erred in holding that the offending vehicle was not involved in accident? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? 3 . What order?". 12. PW.1 in his evidence has stated the manner in which the accident occurred. According to him, when he was crossing the B.M.Road at Hassan, driver of the offending car drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit him. Due to which he fell down and sustained injury. He was immediately shifted to Sri. Chamarajendra Hospital, at Hassan. Claimant has produced Ex.P11-MLC extract, which indicates that he met with an accident at around 8:30.pm., when a Maruthi car hit the two wheeler. It also shows that he was under the influence of alcohol. 13. PW.2-Dr. Lakshmish T., the treating doctor, in his cross examination has stated that whenever an MLC case is admitted, they have to intimate the same to the concerned police. It appears that despite such intimation, the police have not proceeded with the matter. 14. The complaint was filed by one Syed Alam S/o Syed Anwar Khan, who is said to be a neighbour of the claimant. He stated that there was a delay in filing the complaint. However, he may not be a proper person to explain the delay. If medical intimation was sent to the concerned hospital, the concerned police would have come to the hospital and enquired the claimant about the accident. No such procedure was followed in the present case, but no explanation has been provided. PW-2, in his cross examination has stated that in Ex.P.11 there is a reference to the facts of the accident and injuries sustained by the claimant. Claimant, though has produced Ex.P11, has not offered any explanation while examining PW.2, nor he re-examined PW.2 to clarify the endorsement made in Ex.P11. More or less, the said explanation remains unrebutted by the claimant. 15. In view of the said circumstances, delay of four days in lodging the complaint creates doubt. Even Ex.P6-IMV report indicates that there was no visible damage to the offending vehicle. 16. Looking at these facts, the Tribunal held that the accident has not taken place in the manner, as stated in the claim petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1. There are no reasons to interfere in the said finding. Even Ex.P6-IMV report indicates that there was no visible damage to the offending vehicle. 16. Looking at these facts, the Tribunal held that the accident has not taken place in the manner, as stated in the claim petition as well as in the evidence of PW.1. There are no reasons to interfere in the said finding. It is very difficult to believe that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. The chances of false implication of the vehicle just to claim compensation as contended by respondent No.2, cannot be ruled out, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. For the aforesaid discussions, point No.1 is answered in negative and point No.2 do not survive for consideration since respondents are not responsible to pay the compensation. 18. Point No.3, for the reasons discussed above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and award dated 01.09.2014, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Hassan in MVC No.189/2010 is confirmed. iii) Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment.