IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.128 of 2005 Date of Decision: 30.10.2009 Ramji Dass …Appellant. Versus. Gurcharan Singh and others .. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant(s): Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr.Ashwani Sharma, counsel for R-2. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral). This appeal by the Claimant has been filed against the award of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan (camp at Nalagarh) in MAC Petition No.31-NL/2 of 2003 whereby the claim petition has been dismissed. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the claimant filed a petition claiming compensation under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the claim petition he alleged that on 3.5.2001 he was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter No.HP- 12-7649 owned and driven by respondent Gurcharan Singh and insured with United India Insurance Company Ltd. He further states that the scooter skidded near the cremation ground Nalagarh and he fell down on the left side of the road and 2 suffered injuries. He was then taken to the Usha Nursing Home, Ropar where he remained admitted from 3.5.2001 to 5.5.2001. Respondent No.1 had filed the reply admitting the case setout in the claim petition. However, the Insurance Company took up the plea that the petition has been filed by the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1 and that no accident had taken place. Admittedly no FIR in relation to the accident was lodged. No doubt lodging of the FIR is not pre-requisite to filing of a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act but there must be some evidence on record to show that the accident actually took place. The petitioner did not examine any doctor from the Usha Nursing Home, Ropar. He only examined Dr.Anil Bansal who has issued the disability certificate. This Doctor is a private doctor and no reliance can be placed on his certificate. On the other hand the respondents have examined Dr.Satpal from Usha Nursing Home, Ropar. He states that the petitioner remained admitted in the Hospital w/e/f/ 3.5.2001 to 5.5.2001 for dislocation of left elbow. He further stated that the dislocation was an old one. Obviously this injury was not caused on 3.5.2001 as alleged by the petitioner. In case the petitioner had suffered the injury in an accident he would have 3 told his doctor about the same. However, the history of the injury as produced by RW-2 Dr.Satpal who admittedly treated the petitioner shows that the injury was an old one and no fresh injury was caused. In case a fresh injury was caused then the doctor would have obviously prepared a medico legal certificate. The learned Tribunal on these grounds rightly held that the claimant had set-up a false case and in fact no accident had taken place. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. October 30, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.