JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 09.06.2016 made in M.C.O.P. No. 931 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District Judge, Namakkal.

2. The United India Insurance Company Limited is the appellant and the contention mainly raised to set aside the judgment and decree are that the 1st respondent/claimant filed a false Claim Petition and played fraud on the Court to grab an untenable compensation from the Insurance company. There is a time delay in registering the FIR. The FIR itself was lodged with the motive to grab an untenable compensation from the appellant/Insurance company. The Claims Tribunal also failed to note that the second respondent's vehicle in question was not involved in the accident. The claimant has not given Registration number of the vehicle in question alleged to have been involved, while taking treatment. The claimant has given a wrong Registration number of his vehicle, while lodging the belated FIR. The claimant has not produced his correct vehicle to the Motor Vehicle Inspector and in fact, M.V. Report had not placed before the Tribunal. After investigation, the Police has found that the respondent/claimant's FIR was false and submitted a final report to that effect. The evidence was also produced through RW1, RW2 and Ex. R1 & Ex. R2, to establish the false claim and motive of the respondent/claimant to grab an untenable compensation. Thus, the award is liable to be set aside as the claimant obtained the award on the basis of the false claim and by committing a fraud.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent/claimant strenuously opposed the contention by stating that the claim is genuine and not false. The respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries and due to loss of memory and on account of the fact that the FIR is unable to be registered immediately, the delay occurred and the mere delay in registering the FIR cannot be a ground to set aside the entire award. The respondent/claimant had taken treatment due to the accident and under those circumstances, he was not in a position to furnish the correct number of the vehicle and subsequently, he has given the correct number and therefore, the ground taken by the appellant/Insurance company is untenable. It is further contended that the accident was established before the Tribunal and on 04.08.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. at Mohanur Main Road, the respondent/claimant was riding a TVS XL two wheeler and the lorry bearing Registration No. TN-28-AK-7655 came behind the respondent/claimant in a rash and negligent manner, dashed with the two wheeler and the respondent/claimant sustained grievous injuries. He had undergone surgery and spent about a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 53 years and was working as a Coolie and earning a sum of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Therefore, the Claim Petition was filed and the Tribunal also considered the facts and passed an award, granting compensation. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the accident occurred on 04.08.2013 at about 6.00 p.m. and the respondent/claimant was the rider of TVS XL two wheeler and the lorry came behind the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the respondent/claimant, who in turn, fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The respondent/claimant contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry.

5. The contention of the appellant/Insurance company before the Tribunal was that no such accident as such stated in the Claim Petition had occurred. The respondent/claimant had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and fell down and therefore, the very claim petition is untenable. The date, time and the place mentioned in the Claim Petition are false and denied by the appellan