N. C. Jain, J.- This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle against the award of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarding a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- to the widow and the mother of the deceased. At the very outset, the counsel for the appellant has stated before us that in so far as the awarded amount of Rs.1,50,000/- is concerned he is not disputing the same. He submitted that the accident did take place, but not with the taxi belonging b to the appellant and that it is not proved that driver of the taxi was negligent. In the light of these two submissions, the question thus arises, whether it has been proved on the record that the vehicle belonging to the appellant was involved in the accident and whether the driver was rash and negligent in driving the same. 2. The said questions have to be decided by us in the light of the averments made in the petition, the defence taken by the appellant and the evidence brought on the record of the case. The case of the claimant is that one Moni Baruah was driving Ambassador Car No.ASM 1548 on 10th June, 1992 when he knocked down Pradip Medhi the cyclist on National Highway No. 52 at 2.50 PM. The injured was taken to the Civil Hospital where he was declared dead at 3.58 PM. It is further case of the claimant at vehicle in question was involved in the accident as a result of which Pradip Medhi died. The case of the appellant/owner was that his vehicle was never involved in the accident and that two passengers DW 1 and DW 2 hired the taxi which was stopped by the driver after seeing certain persons surrounding the deceased on the road. The two passengers DW 1 and DW 2 saw that the deceased was lying in a injured condition. The deceased was removed by DW 1 Dr. Ananda Pegu. 3. The Tribunal after examining the evidence of PW 7 the Investigating Officer found that the driver of the Ambassador Car was rash and negligent in driving the same. It was further found that the offending car was involved in the accident. DWs 1 and 2 were held to be unreliable. 4. Ananda Pegu. 3. The Tribunal after examining the evidence of PW 7 the Investigating Officer found that the driver of the Ambassador Car was rash and negligent in driving the same. It was further found that the offending car was involved in the accident. DWs 1 and 2 were held to be unreliable. 4. The counsel for the appellant has argued that the vehicle in question never involved in any accident and in any case, the negligence on the part of the driver is not proved. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments but unable to agree with the same. It has come in the statement of PW 7, Investigating Officer that on 10th of June, 1992 he received verbal information from the brother of the owner Khirod Handique and DW 2 Purna Pegu that Ambassador Car No. ASM 1548 was involved in the accident. He after recording the daily entry, investigated the case and seized the vehicle and the bicycle vide Ext 2. He further stated that he seized the key of the car vide Ext 4 from the possession of the driver. He is an independent witness. There is absolutely nothing to disbelieve his sworn testimony. He gave the charge sheet in the criminal Court in GR Case No.244/92. The seizure of the key vide Ext 4 and the seizure of both the Car and the Cycle by one document Ext 2 and that too on the same day, immediately after recording the first information report give credence of the testimony of the PW 7. Had the brother of the appellant not given the verbal information to the Investigating Officer, he could have been produced in the witness box by the appellant as he happens to be his brother. The non-production of such an important witness ie the brother of the appellant goes a long way to prove the case of the claimant that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. The counsel for the appellant could not point out to any specific plea in the written statement that the driver of the car was not negligent. Even otherwise once it was pleaded by the appellant that his taxi was not involved in the accident, the argument that his driver was not negligent is apparently contradictory. The counsel for the appellant could not point out to any specific plea in the written statement that the driver of the car was not negligent. Even otherwise once it was pleaded by the appellant that his taxi was not involved in the accident, the argument that his driver was not negligent is apparently contradictory. Once the Court is satisfied that it is the appellant's car which was involved in the accident, the necessary conclusion would be that the driver was rash and negligent in driving the same. 5. DW 2 has rightly been disbelieved by the Tribunal on the ground that he had informed the police about the accident and he was a witness to the seizure of the cycle and the vehicle. The Tribunal is further right in observing that since the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 are similar. DW 1 was also not reliable. It appears to us that DW 1 after informing the police about the accident was persuaded by the owner of the vehicle to give evidence in his favour and therefore no reliance can be placed upon his statement. It needs to be emphasised that brother of the owner of the vehicle would never have informed the police until and unless the vehicle in question was really involved in the accident. 6. Having gone through the findings of the Tribunal, we do not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. It has rightly been held that the owner was tried to build up a story in order to avoid payment of compensation to the heirs of the deceased. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.