Judgment S.S.Sudhalkar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kaithal which awarded the compensation to the respondent-claimants and the appellant was also made liable to pay the amount. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The Insurance Company has not denied the accident. However, it has contended that the deceased himself was driving the tractor. The case of the claimant-respondents was that the deceased was going from village Sirsal to village Barsana on foot about 7.00 PM when the tractor came from the side of village Barsana. It was driven by respondent No. 6, Mahi Pal in a rash and negligent manner and he could not control the tractor and hit against Krishan Lal. The tractor turned turtle and fell in the pits. Because of the injuries received in the accident by Krishan Lal, he died. 4. The driver and the owner of the tractor had filed the written statement admitting the factun of accident. However, their plea was that the accident had taken place by chance due to natural wear and tear and steering of the tractor became free suddenly and inspite of best efforts on the part of respondent No.6, the accident could not be avoided. The appellant had filed a separate statement by taking a plea that the tractor was not being driven by respondent No.6, at the time of accident. 5. The Tribunal has relied on the evidence and found respondent No. 6 negligent. The appellant relied on the report of Investigator, Mr. Deepak Grover, who had appeared as RW2 and deposed that the deceased himself was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and he had recorded statement of Sarpanch of village Habri and is on record as Ex.R.5 and Ex.R.6 and report of Shri S.K. Gupta, Surveyor as Ex.7. 6. Counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of the deposition of Pala Ram son of Kishan. He had stated that he is a member of the Panchayat. In the month of September, Mahi Pal, respondent No.6 came driving a tractor. Krishan Kumar going on foot. He gave a signal to the driver of the tractor to stop but the tractor could not be stopped. 7. He had stated that he is a member of the Panchayat. In the month of September, Mahi Pal, respondent No.6 came driving a tractor. Krishan Kumar going on foot. He gave a signal to the driver of the tractor to stop but the tractor could not be stopped. 7. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that respondent No.7 Lakhpat Ram is known to him, is his neighbour and Krishan Lal who also known to him since childhood. However, he has also stated that it is incorrect that he did not witness the accident. He has further, stated in the cross-examination that he never saw the deceased Krishan Lal driving the tractor at the time of accident. 8. Production of Investigators report will not discharge the burden to prove the case before the Tribunal. The report is the opinion of the Investigator and what should have been produced was the original evidence, which is not shown to have been produced, to show the case of the appellant to be correct. 9. In view of the above reasons, we do not find that the Tribunal has come to a wrong conclusion regarding the tractor being driven by respondent No.6, Mahi Pal, at the time of accident, in a rash and negligent manner. 10. No further ground has been argued. 11. The award of the Tribunal, therefore does not call for any interference. 12. Dismissed.