S.N. SATYANARAYANA, J.

1. The first respondent in MVC No. 328 of 2011 on the file of MACT, Channarayapatna has come up in this appeal challenging the finding of the tribunal in fastening liability to pay compensation on it pursuant to judgment dated 18.8.2012. In this appeal while challenging the judgment the appellant has also filed an application seeking permission to produce additional evidence. The appeal and application are taken up for consideration.

2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

In the proceedings in MVC No. 328 of 2011 which is initiated by the first respondent M.K. Manjunatha S/o Kodilingappa claiming that on 1.2.2010 at about 8.45 p.m. while he was walking on the left side of B.M. Road in front of Court premises he was hit by motorcycle bearing No. KA 3L 1721 which came from the hind side in a rash and negligent manner. Though it is stated that the accident has taken place on 1.2.2010 at about 8.45 p.m. the complaint with reference to said accident is filed on 4.2.2010 before the Channarayapatna police at 5.30 p.m. The complaint is filed by the claimant himself. It is seen that the claimant was initially taken to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna and subsequently to S.S.M. Hospital, Hassan where it is stated that he has taken treatment spending more than a lakh of rupees. Though it is stated that he was admitted to two hospitals and several bills issued from the said hospitals which are produced the particulars with reference to the recording of MLC registered in both the hospitals is not produced.

3. Admittedly, the claim of the first respondent before the tribunal is that he suffered injury in a road traffic accident. It is also his case that immediately after the accident he noticed the number of the motorcycle and as well as identified the person who was riding the motorcycle. If that is so, he should have definitely mentioned the same to the doctors at Government hospital, Channarayapatna and S.S.M. Hospital in Hassan where he was admitted on 1.2.2010. The said documents are not produced before the court to show that the claimant had suffered injuries in the accident involving motorcycle bearing No. KA 13L 1721. The wound certificate which is issued by the S.S.M. Hospital is relied in the proceedings before the tribunal as Ex.P4 which is issued on 19.2.2010. Even the said document also does not disclose about the involvement of the aforesaid vehicle.

4. It is seen that in the police documents referred to as Exs.P1 to P9 the proceedings is sought to be pursued by the claimant and there appears to be a semblance of contest by the first respondent in denying the claim as fraudulent one. If we look at Ex.P3 which is the complaint which was filed on 4.2.2010 based on which Ex.P2 the FIR is registered, Ex.P4 is the wound certificate of S.S.M. Hospital, Ex.P5 is the charge sheet, Ex.P6 is the spot mahazar, Ex.P7 is the seizure mahazar which is peculiar than the instant case there is an attempt to demonstrate that the vehicle belonging to appellant herein is involved in the accident. They would show as if the appellant herein owner of the vehicle has produced the vehicle before the police on 3.3.2010 at that time the police in the presence of panchas who are signatories to the said documents which is at Ex.P7 noticed damage to the motorcycle which has suffered damage to head light, indicator and meter assembly and also the steering handle of the said motorcycle and as well as its tool bars. These are the damages said to have noticed on 3.3.2010. Surprisingly the said vehicle is not sent to Motor Vehicles Department for inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector.

5. The Amanath mahazar is relied upon to demonstrate that the vehicle belonging to appellant is involved in the accident and aforesaid are the damages which are caused to the vehicle in the said accident. Based on these documents the claim petition was pursued. At this juncture it is also necessary to look at the defence which is