JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. Appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. has preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended up to date, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the M.V. Act’), against the award dated 22.03.2013, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’), in Claim Petition No. 18-MAC/2 of 2009, titled as “Rekha Devi and others Vs Manoj (deceased) through his LRs and others”. 2. By way of award dated 22.03.2013, the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition filed by respondents No. 1 to 3, by awarding a sum of Rs. 5,54,160/-, along with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of the petition, till payment. The ultimate liability to pay the amount of compensation has been fastened upon the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis, are, hereinafter referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned Tribunal. 4. Brief facts, leading to the filing of present appeal, before this Court, may be summed up as under:- 4.1. Petitioners, being widow and sons of deceased Baldev Singh, had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, against the respondents, seeking the compensation, on account of death of Sh. Baldev Singh, in a road side accident, involving vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. HP17A-6406, driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner. 4.2 Elaborating their stand, it has been pleaded that Sh. Baldev Singh, who was aged about 44 years, at the time of his death, was a tailor by profession and was earning more than Rs. 10,000/- per month. 4.3 According to them, on 21.12.2008, deceased Baldev Singh was crossing Bata Pul and meanwhile, vehicle Tata Sumo bearing No. HP17A-6406, being driven by respondent No. 1, in rash and negligent manner, hit Baldev Singh and he sustained injuries. He was taken to Paonta hospital, from where, he was referred to Dehradoon, and from where, he was further referred to Chandigarh, but he expired due to head injuries. 4.4 In the investigation, the police has impounded vehicle No. UA07B-7120 and as such, owner of the said vehicle was also made party. Information regarding the accident was given to the police. 4.4 In the investigation, the police has impounded vehicle No. UA07B-7120 and as such, owner of the said vehicle was also made party. Information regarding the accident was given to the police. 4.5 On the basis of above facts, the petitioners have sought the compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- along with interest, from the date of accident till realization. 5. When put to notice, the claim petition has been contested by the respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d), who are the LRs of respondent No. 1 Manoj Kumar, registered owner and driver of vehicle No. HP17A-6406. They have taken the preliminary objections that the petition is not maintainable, the petitioners are concealing the material facts and vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved in the accident in question. 5.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied by taking the stand that vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved in the accident in question. According to them, as per the investigation conducted by police, vehicle No. UA07B-7120 was found involved in the accident. 6. Respondent No. 2, who has been impleaded as owner-cum-driver of vehicle No. UA07B-7120, has filed separate reply, by taking the preliminary objections, that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioners have concealed the material facts and have not come to the Court with clean hands. 6.1 According to him, he had sold Tata Sumo bearing registration No. UA07B-7120 to Sh. Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Jaiyanti Parsad, resident of Village Tokion, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. In order to substantiate the said fact, the agreement/affidavit of sale, dated 14.07.2008 has been annexed with the reply. 6.2 As per respondent No. 2, the physical possession of the said vehicle was handed over along with the documents to Sh. Sandeep Kumar, from the date of its sale i.e. 14.07.2008, whereas the accident had taken place on 21.12.2008. At that time, according to respondent No. 2, Sandeep Kumar was owner and in possession of the vehicle No. UA07B-7120. All these facts have been pleaded to shift the entire liability upon Sandeep Kumar. 6.3 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied, by reasserting the above mentioned facts. 7. Respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company, insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. All these facts have been pleaded to shift the entire liability upon Sandeep Kumar. 6.3 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied, by reasserting the above mentioned facts. 7. Respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company, insurer of vehicle bearing registration no. UA07B-7120, has filed a separate reply by taking preliminary objections of maintainability, that the driver of the vehicle No. UA07B-7120 was not holding valid and effective driving licence, the said vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and that the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with the owner and driver of the vehicle. 7.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have been denied. 8. Despite the notice of the petition, respondent No. 4, has not opted to contest the claim petition, whereas, respondent No. 5-National Insurance Company Ltd., insurer of vehicle No. HP17A-6406, has filed the separate reply, by taking preliminary objections that the driver of the vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, the vehicle was being permitted to ply in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, and that no accident had allegedly taken place with vehicle No. HP17A-6406. 8.1 On merits, the contents of the claim petition have mainly been denied for want of knowledge. 9. From the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal, had framed the following issues, vide order dated 06.06.2011:- 1. Whether Baldev Singh died on account of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by respondent No. 1 Manoj on 21.12.2008 at Batapul near Majra, as alleged? OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is determined in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle, as alleged? OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Relief. 10. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to lead evidence. 11. OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the petitioners in collusion with respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR-3 6. Relief. 10. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to lead evidence. 11. After the closure of the evidence, learned Tribunal has allowed the petition, by awarding a sum of Rs. 5,54,160/-, along with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till payment, to the claimants by fastening the liability upon respondent No. 5, being insurer of vehicle No. HP17A-6406. 12. Aggrieved from the said award, respondent No. 5 i.e. insurer of vehicle No. HP17A-6406, has filed the present claim petition, assailing the award passed by learned Tribunal, by virtue of which the entire liability to pay the compensation has been fastened upon respondent No. 5/National Insurance Company. 13. The award has been assailed on the grounds that the learned MACT has not properly decided issue No. 1 and wrongly fastened the entire liability upon respondent No. 5. 14. It is the case of respondent No. 5 that vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved in the accident in question and as per the evidence on the record, vehicle make Tata Sumo No. UA07B-7120, was, in fact, involved in the accident in question. In order to buttress its contention, the insurance company has relied upon final report submitted by the police in this regard. 15. According to the appellant-insurance company, the charge sheet under Sections 279, 304-A IPC was filed against Sandeep Kumar. Apart from this, the amount of award is also stated to be excessive, as, according to respondent No. 5, learned MACT has erred while assessing the compensation, ignoring the principle of just compensation and wrongly awarded 30% increase on account of future prospects. 16. On the basis of above grounds of appeal, so highlighted above, Sh. Deepak Bhasin, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has prayed that award passed by learned Tribunal may kindly be set aside by exonerating the insurance company from paying the amount of compensation. 17. The prayer, so made, by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No. 5 has been opposed by Sh. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sambhav Bhasin, Advocate, appearing for the appellant, has prayed that award passed by learned Tribunal may kindly be set aside by exonerating the insurance company from paying the amount of compensation. 17. The prayer, so made, by learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/respondent No. 5 has been opposed by Sh. B.M. Chauhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Amit Himalvi, Advocate appearing for respondent No. 9, as well as, Sh. Ashok K. Tyagi, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 3, while contending that learned MACT has rightly passed the award and the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 18. On the other hand, Mr. Sahil Dixit, Advocate, appearing for respondents No. 4 to 7, has supported the award passed by learned Tribunal, however, he has submitted that adequate compensation has not been awarded to the claimants and prayed that award may kindly be enhanced by awarding just compensation to the claimants. 19. Since, respondent No. 5 insurance company has disputed the involvement of vehicle No. HP17A-6406 in the accident in question, as such, the relevant evidence adduced by the parties to prove the involvement of vehicle is required to be discussed. 19.1 The claimants have examined PW-1, HHC Lal Bahadur, who has proved the copy of FIR Ext. PW1/A. According to this witness he has neither investigated the matter nor he is aware about the fact whether the charge-sheet has been filed against the owner of vehicle no UA07B-7120. 19.2 Claimant No. 1 Rekha Devi (PW-2), deposed about the fact that her husband has died in a road accident on 21.12.2008. She herself deposed in her examination-in-chief that as per the police investigation, the vehicle involved in the accident is Tata Sumo No. UA07B-7120, but according to her, as per eye witness, vehicle involved in the accident is HP17A-6406. Even, in the cross-examination, she has asserted that as per the investigation, vehicle No. UA07B-7120 was involved. FIR was not got registered by this witness. 19.3 The claimants have examined one Jai Kishan (PW-3), as eye witness to the alleged accident. This witness deposed that on 21.12.2008, he had gone to his shop at Batapul. Baldev Singh has crossed him and he was moving to Batapul and a minute later, he heard the sound at Batapul. When, he reached at the spot, then, he noticed that Baldev Singh had met with an accident. This witness deposed that on 21.12.2008, he had gone to his shop at Batapul. Baldev Singh has crossed him and he was moving to Batapul and a minute later, he heard the sound at Batapul. When, he reached at the spot, then, he noticed that Baldev Singh had met with an accident. He noticed vehicle No. HP17A-6406 on the spot, whose driver, on seeing him, switched off the lights and fled away towards Majra Bazaar. He has reasserted in his examination-in-chief that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP17A-6406. This witness has also lodged the FIR in this regard. 19.4 In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that accident had taken place in the evening hours of the day. In the cross-examination by learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2, this witness again admitted that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP17A-6406. He specifically stated that except vehicle No. HP17A-6406, no other vehicle was present on the spot. In the cross-examination by learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 5, this witness has denied all the suggestions, which were put to him, to demonstrate that vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved in the accident. He has denied all the suggestions which were put to him by learned counsel for respondents No. 3 and 5. 19.5 Rajender Parkash-respondent No. 2 appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and deposed that on 21.12.2008, he had sold the vehicle No. UA07B-7120 to Sh. Sandeep Kumar. In this regard, he had sworn-in affidavit on 14.07.2008 and physical possession of the vehicle was handed over to him. He has feigned ignorance with regard to the accident, which had taken place on 21.12.2008. 19.6 In the cross-examination by learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 3 and 5, he deposed that after 14.07.2008, he has no concern whatsoever with vehicle No. UA07B-7120. However, no information was given to respondent No. 4, with regard to transfer of the vehicle in the name of Sandeep Kumar. In the cross-examination by learned counsel appearing for the claimants, this witness has admitted that as per registration certificate, the ownership of the said vehicle has duly been recorded in his name. 19.7 This is the entire evidence, led before the learned Tribunal. 20. In the cross-examination by learned counsel appearing for the claimants, this witness has admitted that as per registration certificate, the ownership of the said vehicle has duly been recorded in his name. 19.7 This is the entire evidence, led before the learned Tribunal. 20. In this case, appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the award, mainly on the ground that the claimants themselves in para 14 of the claim petition, have mentioned about the involvement of two vehicles. Para 14 of the claim petition, is reproduced as under:- “Registration number and type of vehicle involved in the accident. Tata Sumo HP17A-6406 as per eye witness, but as per police investigation, the vehicle involved in the accident is Tata Sumo UA07B-7120.” 21. On the basis of above facts, it has been contended that the learned MACT has not taken into consideration this admitted fact. As such, a prayer has been made to set aside the award. 22. The claimants have categorically stated that vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was involved in the accident, as per eye witness, however, in the police investigation, the involvement of vehicle No. UA07B-7120 has been found. The eye witness has been examined by the claimants as PW-3. PW-3, Jai Kishan categorically stated on oath that on the spot, Tata Sumo bearing No. HP17A-6406 was there and on seeing this witness, the driver switched off the lights and drove the said vehicle towards Majra Bazaar. In the next line, he has categorically stated that the accident in question had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. HP17A-6406. The appellant-respondent No. 5 (Insurance Company) has not even given a suggestion to this witness that vehicle No. UA07B-7120 was involved in the accident in question. When suggestion qua the material fact has not been given to the witness, meaning thereby, whatsoever deposed by this witness qua the involvement of vehicle No. HP17A-6406 stands admitted by respondent No. 5-appellant (Insurance Company). Vehicle No. HP17A-6406, as per the claimants, was driven by Manoj Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d). 23. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been placed on record as Ext. P-X, by the claimants. Vehicle No. HP17A-6406, as per the claimants, was driven by Manoj Kumar, the predecessor-in-interest of respondents No. 1(a) to 1(d). 23. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been placed on record as Ext. P-X, by the claimants. The Insurance Company-appellant has not bothered even to summon the I.O., to know about the manner how he had concluded that vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was not involved, but, it was vehicle No. UA07B-7120, which was involved in the accident. 24. Merely because the I.O. has concluded so, is too short to take away the presumption of truth attached with the statement of a person, who deposed, on oath, before the Court and he was also subjected to cross-examination by the opposite party, including the Insurance Company, which has now filed the appeal, before this Court. 25. Pradhan Gram Panchayat Senwala has not been examined by the Insurance Company, who allegedly disclosed to the police that vehicle No. HP17A-6406, was noticed by him parked in his house. The report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. is totally silent about the fact as to how the I.O. had concluded about the non-involvement of vehicle No. HP17A-6406 and involvement of vehicle No. UA07B-7120 in the accident. When a witness, who appeared before the Court, has deposed categorically, on oath, about the involvement of vehicle No. HP17A-6406, then, the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., indicating about the involvement of vehicle No. UA07B-7120, is inconsequential, as the statement before the Court carries presumption with it. 26. Considering the said fact, this Court is of the view that the learned MACT has rightly relied upon the statement of PW-3 Jai Kishan and thus, the claimants have proved the involvement of vehicle No. HP17A-6406 on the touchstone of reponderance of probabilities. 27. Evidence of RW-1 has rightly been discarded by learned MACT, as this witness has nowhere stated that he was eye witness to the accident in question. At the best, his evidence can be considered qua the transfer of vehicle No. UA07B-7120 to Sandeep Kumar. When a person has not seen the accident in question, then his deposition is not relevant to the adjudication of the issue, whether vehicle No. HP17A-6406 was involved or not. 28. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings, so recorded by the learned MACT. 29. No other point has been urged or argued. 30. 28. Considering all these facts, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the findings, so recorded by the learned MACT. 29. No other point has been urged or argued. 30. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the learned MACT is upheld. 31. No order as to costs. 32. Record be sent back.