PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') against the order dated 17. 9. 1998, passed by Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in m. V. Case No. 66 of 1998. ( 2 ) THE Claims Tribunal has refused to grant interim award to the appellants on the ground that the F. I. R. mentions the registration number of car as MP-20-5575, whereas during the investigation the police had found that the accident was caused by vehicle registered as MP-20-W-1386. In view of the discrepancies in the F. I. R. and the statements of the witnesses, the Claims tribunal has declined to grant interim award because it was difficult for it to determine which was the vehicle responsible for the accident in question. ( 3 ) IN this appeal, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the person who lodged the F. I. R. was not a witness. His name was Shikhar Chand bothara. On the other hand, two witnesses sonu alias Akash, son of Shikhar Chand bothara and Tarun Sethi, son of J. P. Sethi have stated that a white Fiat car bearing registration number MP-20-W-1386 had caused the accident. It was contended that pursuant to the investigation, a final report was made to the effect that the respondent no. 1, Rajendra Singh Chhabra was guilty of the offence of negligent driving. It is, therefore, argued that merely because there was some discrepancy in the registration number of the car at the stage of lodging of the F. I. R. by Shikhar Chand Bothara, who was not an eyewitness, it cannot be said that there was no prima facie case against the respondent No. 1 and that his vehicle was not involved in the accident. ( 4 ) COUNTER argument is that in view of the confused version given by the three witnesses for the prosecution to the police, it cannot be definitely said that the vehicle of the respondent No. 1 was involved in the accident and, therefore, the conclusion of the Claims Tribunal was correct. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that at this stage of determination of no fault liability, this court has just to find out the possible owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. ( 5 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that at this stage of determination of no fault liability, this court has just to find out the possible owner of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident. There may be dispute about involvement of a vehicle, but the court cannot shut from the responsibility of finding out the facts as far as possible, from the material on record. It is true that the F. I. R. , lodged by Shikhar chand Bothara, does mention that the car bearing No. MP-20-5575 was the vehicle involved in the accident. But, he had explained this fact that he did not know correct registration number of the car and he stated that the correct number was MP-20-W-1386. He made a statement before the court that the vehicle involved in the accident was registered as MP-20-W-1386 and this is also the statement of another eyewitness Tarun Sethi. The preponderance of probability was that the vehicle was numbered as MP-20-W-1386 and, therefore, the owner, respondent No. 1 and the insurer, respondent No. 2 are liable to pay rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only)jointly and severally to the appellants for the death of Gladwin Siril. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the respondent No. 2, the insurer shall deposit Rs. 50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand) plus interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 27. 4. 98 before the Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall direct the amount of Rs. 50,000 plus interest to be deposited within four months from today in a scheduled bank in fixed deposit for two years and shall make a direction of payment of the amount to the party entitled to it in accordance with the result of the final award. In case, the amount is not deposited within a period of four months from today, the appellants shall be free to recover the amount by starting execution proceedings. In such an event, the amount recovered by the appellants shall be subject to condition of deposit in a scheduled bank. It is further directed that the Claims Tribunal shall try to dispose of the case at the earliest. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 17. 9. 1998 is hereby set aside. No costs. Appeal allowed. .