( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company to challenge the judgment and award dated 7-3-1994 in MVC No. 365 of 1987 passed by the District Judge and MACT. Tumkur. In passing the same, the MACT had awarded a compensation of Rs. 58,400/- together with interest at 6% p. a. fastening the liability thereto both on the Insurance Company and also on the respondent 2-owner. ( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Sri K. N. Srinivasa appearing along with Sri S. K. V. Chalapathy, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1-Sri Ravi Shankar and the learned Counsel, Sri B. Aswathaiah appearing for the respondent 2-owner. I have also perused the case records. ( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company had taken me through the facts of the case and also the impugned judgment and award under challenge. In his argument, Sri srinivasa submitted that despite there being no cogent and acceptable evidence adduced by the respondent 1-claimant before the MACT to show that he was getting into the bus and thus a third party, the MACT had fastened the liability both on the appellant-Insurance Company as well as on the respondent 2-owner. According to Sri Srinivasa, the MACT based on such an evidence would have justly concluded that the appellants-claimant was only a passenger travelling in the bus and as such had suffered an accident injury while he was getting down from the bus and therefore at any stretch of imagination the MACT would not have fastened the entire liability on the Insurance Company, for under Ex. D. 1 policy the premium collected by the Insurance company was Rs. 12/- per passenger (the vehicle being a passenger bus) and thus restricting the liability to an extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger in the bus in question. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT fastening the liability on the insurance Company be restricted to Rs. 15,000/ -. 12/- per passenger (the vehicle being a passenger bus) and thus restricting the liability to an extent of Rs. 15,000/- per passenger in the bus in question. Therefore, he prayed that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT fastening the liability on the insurance Company be restricted to Rs. 15,000/ -. ( 4 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1-claimant argued that it was the case of the respondent 1-claimant both in filing the claim petition as well as in adducing the evidence that he was getting into the bus at the relevant point of time of occurrence of the accident and it is at that point of time all of a sudden the respondent 3 before the MACT (non-party in the appeal) had started the bus and caused for fall of the respondent 1 from the bus and thus causing accidental injuries to him. In this context, he had taken me through the evidence of the respondent 1-claimant examined as P. W. 1 and further tried to derive support from the evidence adduced by him in examining P. W. 2, of course, as I see the evidence by P. W. 2, an eye-witness was to the effect that the injuries were suffered by the respondent-claimant while he was getting into the bus. The learned Counsel for the respondent 1-claimant had also cited before me two decisions in support of his contention that when the passenger gets into the bus he has to be construed in law as a third party. The decisions are 1988 ACJ 500 and 1986 ACJ 506. ( 5 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, Sri Ravi Shankar prayed that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT be confirmed in dismissing the appeal of the Insurance Company. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for the respondent 3-owner while lending support to the argument for the respondent 1-claimant submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT was just and proper award and the same is in no way be termed as erroneous, for according to him, the same was based on the material evidence adduced by the respondent 1-claimant. Incidentally, at this stage the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that there were good reasons for the respondent 2-owner to remain absent before the MACT. Incidentally, at this stage the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that there were good reasons for the respondent 2-owner to remain absent before the MACT. However, the learned Counsel for the respondent 2-owner alternatively prayed that the matter be remanded to the MACT for affording the respondent 2-owner an opportunity to contest the claim of the respondent 1. ( 7 ) IN view of the above submissions, I have gone through the records of the MACT below carefully, for I too sensed the rat. In this context, it is to be pointed out that in support of the case of the respondent 1-claimant, he had examined himself as P. W. 1 and he has also examined yet another witness (eye-witness) as P. W. 2. I have observed that the oral evidence is in tune with the pleadings in the claim petition that the respondent-claimant had suffered injury while he was getting into the bus. I have also observed that in the claim petition that that was the case made out at the first instance before the MACT by the respondent-claimant, but what is interesting is that the respondent-claimant had himself produced certified copy of the charge-sheet (prosecuting the driver of the bus for the traffic offence he had committed) before the MACT and marked the same as Ex. P. 1. On going through Ex. P. 1, charge-sheet, it appears to me that the case of the appellant-Insurance Company stands vindicated for in the charge-sheet, it had been stated therein that the driver of the bus while driving the bus bearing registration No. TDU 7799 at the 5th K. M. stone point of K. T. Halli Mangalawada Road, the bus in question was driven rashly and negligently with a great speed and at that point of time, the respondent 1-claimant had fallen from the bus and in the process his left leg got struck to the rear wheel of the bus. To quote what had been stated in the charge-sheet Ex. P. 1, the same reads as follows:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . 7-A. It is to be pointed out here that Ex. P. 1 charge-sheet had not been produced and marked by the appellant-Insurance Company, but by the respondent 1-claimant himself before the MACT in his evidence. To quote what had been stated in the charge-sheet Ex. P. 1, the same reads as follows:. . (VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED ). . 7-A. It is to be pointed out here that Ex. P. 1 charge-sheet had not been produced and marked by the appellant-Insurance Company, but by the respondent 1-claimant himself before the MACT in his evidence. If the said piece of evidence produced by the respondent 1-claimant is read in conjecture with the evidence of the respondent 1-claimant examined as P. W. 1 and the evidence of the eye-witness P. W. 2, it appears to me that they run one against the other. In the said circumstances, it is difficult for me to accept the theory of the respondent 1-claimant that the injuries suffered by him was while he was getting into the bus on the fateful day. ( 8 ) YET another aspect of the case is that Ex. P. 1 charge-sheet shows that too at an undisputed point of time that the claimant had suffered the accident injuries when he was climbing down from the bus whereas the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 on record of the MACT is quite the contrary and to the effect that the accident had occurred when he was getting into the bus. But, it has to be noted here that filing the claim petition as well as evidence adduced by the appellant was much later to the date of occurrence of the accident. It is well said that the men may lie but not the record. In my considered view, the said saying has got every application to the case in hand. This contradiction in the case of the claimant, the MACT had failed to appreciate and it is thus it had erred in passing the impugned judgment and award fastening the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company also. It is said that there is no perfect crime without there being a clue; of course, in the instant case in hand there is no crime as such, nevertheless, there was an attempt by the respondent 1-claimant in collusion with the respondent 2-owner to overreach the mact to circumvent the law to pass the entire liability on the appellant-Insurance Company. The clue in the instant case is the charge-sheet Ex. The clue in the instant case is the charge-sheet Ex. P. 1, very well produced by none other than by the respondent 1-claimant himself before the MACT, unnoticeably, ultimately to find himself now before this Court in the dock to suffer a jolt to his embarassment and discomfiture. The situation of the respondent 2-owner is no way better before this Court as he also stood exposed. ( 9 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced to hold that the respondent 1-claimant and the respondent 2-owner tried to be over-smart to overreach the MACT below to fasten the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company in its entirety to its peril. In a peculiar circumstances of the case in hand one can closely see the perfect understanding between the respondent 1-claimant and the respondent 2-owner in this regard right from the day one in institution of the claim petition before the MACT by the respondent 1-claimant for, the respondent 2-owner having been served with notice by the MACT remained absent before the mact, whereas he did not do so in the instant appeal as he is present before this Court to contest the appeal. Such an understanding between them can be understood as the learned counsel for the respondent 2-owner while in one breath had argued that the impugned judgment and award passed by the MACT fastening the liability also on the appellant-Insurance Company was just and proper, in another he had argued that the matter be remanded to the MACT for affording him with an opportunity to contest the claim of the respondent 1-claimant. It is not difficult for me to see the reason behind such a prayer, for the respondent 2-owner having been exposed before this Court is likely to suffer in the event the liability of paying the compensation to the appellant-claimant is fastened on him also with the allowance of this appeal of the insurance Company to avoid their liability beyond the statutory limit of Rs. 15,000. 00. ( 10 ) IT is to be observed here that had the MACT carefully analysed the evidence on record as this court had done, there was no difficulty for the MACT to find out the over-smartness of the respondent 1-claimant in collusion with the respondent 2-owner to overreach it to inflict the injury to the appellant-Insurance Company by fastening the liability entirely on it. Having considered that aspect of the case, it appears to me that a piece of advice be tendered to all the macts and the additional MACTs in the State to be alert as against the 'smartness' of the claimants at times hands-in-glove with the owners of the vehicles to put the Insurance Company into loss and injury. I may point out in this contest that the MACTs-Courts cannot afford to be silent spectators to such intelligent moves of litigants for, the Insurance Companies being the national Financial Institutions, loss to them is loss to the State xchequer as well and as such one cannot allow a run on the monies of the Insurance Company by resorting to false and untenable claims. I may further point out that MACTs should scrupulously guard every paisa of the Insurance Company in every possible manner even where there is no proper assistance by the counsel appearing for the Insurance Companies in the matter of accident claims before them. 10-A. It is to be added here that had this Court too not carefully scrutinised the evidence in Ex. P. 1 charge-sheet on the file of the MACT referred to above, this Court too would not have been in a position to point out the over-smartness of the respondent 1-claimant and the respondent 2-owner and further their concerted acts in collusion with each other to sustain loss to the appellant-Insurance Company. ( 11 ) IN that view of the matter, I find that there is every merit in the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company and therefore the impugned judgment and award passed by the mact in not restricting its liability to the statutory limit of Rs. 15,000. 00 and further fastening the entire liability also on the Insurance Company is totally erroneous and therefore the same is called for to be interfered with in the instant appeal by this Court. ( 12 ) IN view of the above conclusion I reached, I do not think it is necessary to advert to the decisions referred to by the learned Counsel for the respondent 1-claimant referred in para 4, supra. In the result, I pass the following: order (i) The impugned judgment and award dated 7-3-1994 in MVC No. 365 of 1987 passed by the mact awarding compensation to a tune of Rs. In the result, I pass the following: order (i) The impugned judgment and award dated 7-3-1994 in MVC No. 365 of 1987 passed by the mact awarding compensation to a tune of Rs. 58,400/- is held good but the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company under the impugned judgment and award is restricted to the statutory limit of Rs. 15,000/- only and nothing beyond. (ii) That the liability of the respondent 2-owner is in respect of the entire amount of the award of rs. 58,400. 00 together with interest as fastened by the MACT under the impugned judgment and award shall sustain. (iii) The grant of interest at 6% under the impugned judgment and award however is left unaltered. (iv) The appellant-Insurance Company as well as the respondent 2-owner are hereby directed to deposit the sums they are liable to compensate the respondent 1-claimant as above within a period of 3 months from this date, of course, after giving deduction to what had been deposited by them either before this Court or before the MACT subsequent to passing of the impugned judgment and award by the MACT. The appeal therefore succeeds in part and allowed in part in the above terms. No cost. In view of the fact that certain general directions are issued to the MACTs and additional macts in the State, as in para 10, supra, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment/order to all the MACTs and additional MACTs in the State for their guidance.