JUDGMENT 1. - Since, these two appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by common order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.1985 at about 12.30 pm when appellants who are husband and wife, were returning from Ambabari to Brahmpuri on scooter bearing registration No. RND 3481, the car bearing registration No. RRG 8823 coming from opposite direction negligently collided with the scooter of appellants, as a result of which the appellants sustained injuries and their scooter was damaged. 3. Appellant Bhanwar Lal filed Claim Petition No. 108/1986 and appellant Smt. Sribala filed separate Claim Petition No. 109/1986 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which were dismissed on the ground that the policy submitted, of the car, was not genuine and it was also not proved that the car was owned by respondent No. 2 M/s Prahlad and Company and was driven by Respondent No. 1 Surjeet Singh. 4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, these appeals have been preferred. 5. Counsel for the appellant contended that appellants submitted the copies of charge-sheet in which Surjeet Singh has been shown as an accused in relation to this accident, thus learned Tribunal wrongly inferred that no evidence has been led in this regard. It is also contended that Exhibit-8 is a copy of Insurance Policy of the vehicle involved (car) in which respondent No. 2 is shown as its owner. It was also submitted that there is no reliable evidence which goes to show that Exhibit-8, Insurance Certificate, is not genuine. He also relied upon the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 306/1995 Smt. Kaushlya Devi & Ors. v. RSRTC, decided on 21.04.1997 , wherein it was held that strict rules of pleadings and proof are not applicable in the proceedings of Motor Vehicles Act, which are summary proceedings. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that it has been proved by the Company that Exhibit-8, Insurance Certificate, produced by the appellants, is fictitious. It was also submitted that the appellants and their witnesses did not utter even a single word as to who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, as also who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He further argued that copy of the charge-sheet is not a substantive piece of evidence. 7. It was also submitted that the appellants and their witnesses did not utter even a single word as to who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, as also who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. He further argued that copy of the charge-sheet is not a substantive piece of evidence. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the entire record. In my view, learned Tribunal has correctly concluded that the photo copy of Insurance Certificate, Exhibit-8, was not a genuine document. The documents produced by the Insurance Company, Exhibits NA. 1 to NA. 10, which were proved by Anil Jain (NAW. 1) clearly show that Policy No. 431616348 was issued in the name of ex-MLA Swami Agnivesh by the Calcutta office of the Company and no such policy like Exhibit-8 had ever been issued in he name of M/s Prahlad & Co., respondent No. 2, in relation to the vehicle involved in the accident. 8. So far ownership of the involved vehicle is concerned, no documentary evidence except Exhibit-8, photo copy of Insurance Certificate, has been produced by the appellants, which is found not genuine. 9. It is significant to mention here that appellants Bhanwar Lal and Smt. Sribala were examined and they also produced Mukesh Pareek (AW.3), Tejpal (AWA) and Tikaram Pareek (AW.5) as witnesses before the Tribunal but they also did not utter a single word in regard to the ownership of the involved vehicle RRG 8823 and also they did not depose anything as regards who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In this respect, first information report Exhibit-10 is also relevant in which also nothing has been mentioned about the fact that who was the driver of RRG 8823 which collided with the scooter of the appellants. 10. So far production of coy of charge-sheet is concerned, it is not a substantive piece of evidence and its production alone cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim petition. 11. My views are also fortified by the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court in Mataj i Bewa Vs Hemant Kumar Jena, reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 , in which also it was held that contents of charge-sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim proceeding. The Tribunal must rely the evidence led before it. 12. 11. My views are also fortified by the judgment rendered by the Orissa High Court in Mataj i Bewa Vs Hemant Kumar Jena, reported in 1994 ACJ 1303 , in which also it was held that contents of charge-sheet cannot be treated as an evidence in a claim proceeding. The Tribunal must rely the evidence led before it. 12. Thus, on the strength of aforesaid discussion, I find no force in both the appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******