B. Manohar, J.

Appellant being the claimant has filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7th June, 2014 made in MVC No. 6227/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.

2. The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 15-04-2012 at about 4.00 p.m., while he was proceeding on Honda Shine motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-50-H- 4188 as a pillion rider along with his friend who was riding the said motor cycle, near Anjaneya Temple, the rider of the motor cycle rode the same with a high speed, in rash and negligent manner. While avoiding the pot hole on the road, the motor cycle skidded, the claimant and his friend rider of the motorcycle fell down. The claimant has sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Harsha Hospital at Nelamangala wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 15-04-2012 to 19-04-2012. He claims that he sustained type-II compound fracture with large butterfly fracture of both bones of left leg. He further contended that he was practicing as an advocate and earning a sum of Rs. 60,000/- p.m. In view of the accidental injuries, he cannot continue his professional work, thereby he has sustained huge loss of earning. He had to appoint one attendant to take care of him in the hospital. The accident in question is caused due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle which was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. Hence both the respondents are liable to compensate the claimant jointly and severally, to an extent of Rs. 50,00,000/-.

3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents entered appearance and filed written statement. The first respondent denied the rash and negligent riding of the motor cycle, however contended that as on the date of the accident, the insurance policy w as in existence. Hence, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimant.

4. The second respondent-insurance company in the written statement denied its liability to compensate the claimant. Further contended that the insured has not intimated them with regard to occurrence of the accident on 15-04-2012 and no document has been furnished with regard to the accident of the insured vehicle. Further, there is inordinate delay of 22 days in lodging the complaint. In the complaint filed before the jurisdictional police, the claimant clearly mentioned that on 15-4-2012, while he was walking on the road, the rider of a two wheeler came from behind and dashed against him, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries. After the accident, the rider of the motor cycle, without stopping the vehicle went away. Some people got him admitted to the hospital. However, in the charge sheet, the police stated that while the claimant was proceeding as a pillion rider in the offending motor cycle, he fell down and sustained injuries and admitted to the hospital. In the Medico Legal Register maintained in the hospital it was mentioned that injury is due to the alleged RTA, but vehicle number and manner of the accident has not been mentioned. The claimant in collusion with the first respondent and the police officials filed a false case in order to get the compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues :

(i) Whether the petitioner proves that on 15-04-2012 at about 4.00 p.m. was travelling as a pillion rider on motor cycle Honda Shine bearing Reg.No.KA-50-H-4188. When he was proceeding near Anjaneya Temple, Nelamangala town, the rider of the said vehicle drove the same at high speed in a rash and negligent manner. While avoiding the pot-hole on the road skid the vehicle. As a result of which petitioner fell down and sustained injuries as