Judgment :- V. Dhanapalan, J. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of the judgment dated 29.11.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Ad­ditional District Court & Chief Judicial Magis­trate, Erode In M.C.O.P. No. 218 of 1995. 2. In connection with the death of one Madasamy in a vehicular accident which took place on 9.12.1991, his legal heirs, namely, wife and son who are the respondents herein, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Before the Tribunal, it was their case that, at about 6:45 p.m. on that fateful day, when the said Madasamy was riding his bicycle in Kunnathur, Pallakoundanpalayam Main Road, the first appellant herein who was com­ing in the opposite direction, driving the lorry bearing Registration No. MDT 8867 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said Madasamy and sped away, thereby causing him fatal injuries. It was their further case that the deceased who was aged 40 years was get­ting not less than Rs. 2,000/- as a Maistry and hence, they are liable to be paid a compensa­tion of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the owner and the in-surer of the lorry. On the side of the claimants, three witnesses were examined and eight doc­uments were marked. 3. The owner of the lorry, the first appellant herein, was set ex-parte before the Tribunal and the Insurer of the lorry, the second appel­lant herein, on 7.10.1994, filed its counter, dis­puting the claims such as the age, income and occupation of the deceased and contended that the owner of the lorry had not submitted to it any Claim Form as per the procedure and hence, it was not in a position to decide whether it was liable to pay the compensation or not. On 30.8.1996, the Insurance Company filed its additional counter, contending that the first respondent did not drive the lorry on the day of accident and the lorry was not involved in any accident and hence, it is not liable to compensate the claimants. It was its further contention that the driver-cum-owner of the lorry had colluded with the claimants and had not chosen to appear before the Tribunal. On the side of the Insurer, one document was marked and one witness was examined. It was its further contention that the driver-cum-owner of the lorry had colluded with the claimants and had not chosen to appear before the Tribunal. On the side of the Insurer, one document was marked and one witness was examined. In re­sponse, the claimants filed their reply state­ment negating the points stated in the additional counter filed by the Insurer and con-tended that only with a view to avoid its liabil­ity, the Insurer had come out with its additional counter. 4. After giving credence to the evidence available before it, the Tribunal fixed the neg­ligence on the part of the lorry driver, the first appellant herein and made the Insurance Com­pany, the second appellant herein, liable to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,03,000/- with inter­est @ 12% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit. 5. Aggrieved by this judgment of the Tribu­nal, the owner and the insurer of the lorry in question have approached this Court contend­ing that said lorry was not at all involved in the accident and the judgment of the Tribunal has to be set aside. Thus, the only points for con­sideration before this Court are those of negli­gence and liability and since the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal is not agi­tated, this Court is not traversing on that point and the same is confirmed. 6. Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Tri­bunal has erred in fastening the liability on the appellants in a case where there was no acci­dent involving the lorry in question for the rea­sons that the lorry alleged to have been involved in the accident was not identified in the First Information Report and the criminal case against the driver also had been closed as not traceable. Thus, it was his main contention that the respondents/claimants had falsely im­plicated the lorry in question and as such, the owner and Insurer of the lorry are not liable to compensate the claimants. 7. Per contra, Mr. Thus, it was his main contention that the respondents/claimants had falsely im­plicated the lorry in question and as such, the owner and Insurer of the lorry are not liable to compensate the claimants. 7. Per contra, Mr. Anandamoorthy, learned counsel appearing on the side of the re­spondents/claimants has argued that the al­leged fraud was not pleaded by the appellants either in the counter or in the additional coun­ter and the Tribunal had fixed the negligence on the lorry driver and fastened the liability on the Insurer only on proper analysis of the evi­dence available before it and in that view of the matter, the contention of the appellants that the lorry in question has been falsely implicated does not have legs to stand and should fail. 8. I have heard the learned counsel on either side. 9. Firstly, the involvement of the lorry bear­ing Registration No. MDT 8867 in the acci­dent that took place on 9.12.1991 itself is disputed by the appellants. It is the stand taken by the counsel for the appellants that neither the lorry number nor the name of its driver was found in the First Information Report and the criminal case which was registered against the first appellant was also closed on 21.5.1992 as not traceable and thus, the lorry in question was not at all involved in the accident. But, it is seen that, after the closure of the criminal case, the Sub-Inspector of Police has done investi­gation and arrested the first appellant on 8.12.1992 and his name has been registered in the Prisoners' Search Register which is marked as Exhibit P-8. The report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector which has been marked as Exhibit P-4 says that the accident was not caused due to any mechanical fault. P.W.3, the Inspector of Kunnathur Police Station has de-posed that file of the Crime No. 165 of 1991 was destroyed since it was more than five years' old but the Prisoners' Search Register carries the name of the first appellant. 10. Though the counsel for the appellant has contended that the name of the driver and the number of the lorry were not found in the First Information Report and the criminal case was closed as not traceable, the same plea was not raised by the appellants either in their counter or in their additional counter. 10. Though the counsel for the appellant has contended that the name of the driver and the number of the lorry were not found in the First Information Report and the criminal case was closed as not traceable, the same plea was not raised by the appellants either in their counter or in their additional counter. Further, after the evidence on the side of the claimants was closed, the Assistant Administrative Offi­cer of the Insurer was examined as R.W. 1 and he has deposed that the criminal case against the first appellant was closed as non-traceable vide Exhibit R-1 and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be made liable to compen­sate the loss of the claimants. But, to prove its case, the Insurance Company could have very well examined the driver of the lorry who is none other than the first appellant. But, this has not been done. From these sequence of events, as done by the Tribunal, it has to be naturally concluded that only after the First Information Report was produced before the Tribunal and only after the examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 was over, as an after-thought, the counsel for the respondents before the Tribunal has argued (at the cost of repetition) that neither the name of the driver nor the number of the lorry was found in the First Information Report and the criminal case against the driver also has been closed and as such, the lorry in question was not at all involved in the accident. 11. The counsel for the appellants, in sup-port of his argument that it is not possible to re­sist the claim at the first instance, has relied on a decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh and Others 2000 ACJ 1032 and the rele­vant paragraph reads as under: "It is unrealistic to expect the appellant company to resist a claim at the first in-stance on the basis of the fraud because ap­pellant company had at that stage no knowledge about the fraud allegedly played by claimants. If the Insurance Company co­mes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time, the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the company to file a statutory appeal against the award. If the Insurance Company co­mes to know of any dubious concoction having been made with the sinister object of extracting a claim for compensation, and if by that time, the award was already passed, it would not be possible for the company to file a statutory appeal against the award. Not only because of bar of limitation to file the appeal but the consideration of the appeal even if the delay could be condoned, would be limited to the issues formulated from the pleadings made till then". 12. In response, the counsel for the respon­dents/claimants, to add strength to his argu­ments that fraud has to be pleaded and proved, has relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.C.Ananthaswatny and Others v. Boraiah (dead) by LRs. 2005 (1) LW 669 and the relevant paragraph goes thus: "5 Fraud is to be pleaded and proved. To prove fraud, it must be proved that repre­sentation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true. . . To prove a case of fraud, it must be proved that the representa­tion made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation..." 13. Further reliance has been placed by the counsel for the respondents/claimants on a de­cision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohanjit Kaur and Others 2005 ACJ 654 in which the penulti­mate paragraph reads as follows: "... It is also settled proposition of law that allegations of fraud are to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal proceed­ings. Allegations of fraud cannot be held to be proved as in civil actions on balance of probabilities." 14. Lastly, on the aspect of the attitude of the Insurance Companies contesting hotly even the genuine claims, the counsel for the re­spondents/claimants has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh and Others (2004) 10 SCC 649 in which a portion of para­graph 6 reads as under: "Insurance Companies must bear in mind that they are the trustees of the public, keep­ers of the public coffer. Ltd. v. Kiran Singh and Others (2004) 10 SCC 649 in which a portion of para­graph 6 reads as under: "Insurance Companies must bear in mind that they are the trustees of the public, keep­ers of the public coffer. Often, even genuine claims are being hotly contested in a routine manner by dragging the parties to Courts, wasting enormous time and money for the claimants to get their claims settled. An Act like the Motor Vehicles Act, being a benefi­cial legislation aimed at quick redressal of the victims of accident arising out of the use of motor vehicles, the attitude routinely adopted by the Insurance Companies would render the object of the Act frustrated." 15. Of course, the decision cited supra by the counsel for the appellants which says that it is unrealistic to expect the Insurance Company to resist the claim at the first instance, may be considered, provided the exhibits marked by the claimants are dubious and concocted. But, I have carefully perused the exhibits, namely, First Information Report, draft sketch, obser­vation mahazar, report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector, post-mortem certificate and Pris­oners' Search Register which do not give room even for any kind of suspicion. From that point of view and in view of the decision of the Su­preme Court and the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh relied on by the coun­sel for the respondents/claimants which uni­formly say that allegations of fraud are to be specifically pleaded and proved beyond rea­sonable doubt and since the same have not at all been pleaded either in the counter or in the additional counter before the Tribunal and not proved by the appellants by letting in any clinching evidence, this Court has no other op­tion except to endorse the finding of the Tribu­nal that the arguments raised on the side of the appellants are only the result of an af­ter-thought. In such a view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver who is none other than the first appellant herein, holds good and as a consequence, the Tribunal’s finding that the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner is also confirmed and in these terms, the Judgment of the Tribunal is upheld. 16. 16. In the light of what has been stated above, I find no merit in the appeal and consequently, it fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Civil Miscellaneous appeal dismissed.