Judgment S.K.Seth, J. ( 1. ) Appellant insurance company by Mr. Anil Goyal, Advocate. None for respondents despite issuance of S.P.C. Arguments heard. Order dictated in open court in presence of learned counsel for the parties. ( 2. ) This is an appeal by the insurance company against the award dated 20.6.2003 passed by the M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case No. 177 of 2001. ( 3. ) On 24.4.2001, the deceased Khema met with an accident because of rash and negligent driving of the tractor by respondent No. 11. On the fateful day, offending vehicle belonged to the respondent No. 12 and was insured with appellant insurance company. The only question raised in this appeal for consideration is whether the appellant insurance company is liable to pay compensation or not? Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in F.I.R. it was clearly mentioned that deceased was travelling in the tractor-trolley and when it was negotiating a culvert, the deceased fell down from the trolley and the rear wheel of trolley ran over tire head of the deceased and as a result, deceased died on the spot. He drew support from the F.I.R., Exh. PI, lodged by Nansingh. With support of this, learned counsel for appellant submitted that there was a breach of the insurance policy as well as of law, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle by making payment of compensation to the claimants who are widow and children of the deceased. ( 4. ) After having heard learned counsel for appellant at length and going through the record of the case, we do not find any merit and substance in this appeal. It is submitted that Nansingh was examined as PW 2 and in his deposition, he has denied The fact that the deceased was travelling in the tractor-trolley. He further stated that he was not aware as to how in the F.I.R. this fact was mentioned. In view of this, the question is whether we should go by F.I.R. or the statement made by Nansingh, PW 2, before the Claims Tribunal on oath. F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and as such, it cannot be placed on pedestal higher than the statement made before the Claims Tribunal on oath. In view of this, the question is whether we should go by F.I.R. or the statement made by Nansingh, PW 2, before the Claims Tribunal on oath. F.I.R. is not a substantive piece of evidence and as such, it cannot be placed on pedestal higher than the statement made before the Claims Tribunal on oath. Nansingh, PW 2, in his statement on oath had clearly stated that the deceased was going on foot when he was hit by the tractor-trolley, which came from behind, therefore, we do not find any illegality in the approach of the Claims Tribunal while coming to the conclusion that deceased was not travelling in the tractor-trolley. This finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and as such, it does not call for any interference by this court. No other point is raised in this appeal. Hence, appeal fails. ( 5. ) In view of the foregoing discussion, appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.