Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J.:- ( Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Satish Chandra, J. ) The appellant has assailed the order and judgment dated 29.4.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Faizabad in Claim Petition No. 78 of 2003 where a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- was awarded on the basis of hit and run. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.6.2002, deceased Mohd. Raees was coming from Ayodhya to Faizabad on his scooter no. UMR-2266 at about 2.00 am, a jeep was following him and hit the scooter which resulted the injury to the deceased who died in the hospital at 6.00 am. An FIR was written in the Police Station, Faizabad on 5.7.2000 on the basis of application dated 28.6.2000 against the unknown vehicle. 3. Suddenly, on 10.7.2000 after a gap of about one month, one Sri Gopal Yadav, advocate has approached the appellants-claimants that he was an eye-witness of the accident and noted down Jeep No. URV 203 who has hit the scooter of the deceased. But the Tribunal has not relied on the testimony given by Sri Gopal Yadav. The Tribunal finally awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the hit and run policy under Section 161(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Not being satisfied, appellants have filed the present appeal. 4. With this background, Sri S. A. Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that Sri Gopal Yadav, advocate was the sole testimony who has seen the said accident. He submits that in the night of the accident, the deceased and Sri Gopal Yadav were together in the musical programme and after attaining the same, both were going back to their houses on their own scooter. He further submits that Sri Gopal Yadav is an advocate and he has noted down the Jeep number in question which was insured with the New India Insurance Company and was driven by an experienced driver who was holding a valid licence. So, suitable compensation may be awarded to the appellants-claimants against the Insurance Company. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the said jeep was not involved in the accident at all as alleged by its owner. He admitted that on the date of accident, the jeep was duly insured. So, suitable compensation may be awarded to the appellants-claimants against the Insurance Company. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the said jeep was not involved in the accident at all as alleged by its owner. He admitted that on the date of accident, the jeep was duly insured. He also submits that the amount of Rs.25,000/- will have to be given by the District Magistrate and not by the Insurance Company. But he admits that insurance company has not filed any appeal against the said award. Lastly, he justified the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material available on record. 7. From the record, it appears that the death of deceased in the accident is not disputed. It occurred in the night of 11/12.6.2000 at about 2.00 am. The deceased was going on scooter and a vehicle hit from the back side which resulted the injury and ultimately death of the deceased. 8. The sole testimony in the instant case was of Sri Gopal Yadav, advocate claimed that he was in the same musical party where deceased was. He was following the scooter but could not remember the number of the scooter of the deceased. Further, Sri Gopal Yadav claimed that he approached the claimant after one month of the accident as he was afraid from the police. Being an advocate, it is not expected that he was afraid from the police. He has not informed the police immediately. Thus, he has not performed his duty honestly. The police has filed final report in the said case as no vehicle was identified. 9. On the next day of accident, the police has published the said accident in the local news paper even then Sri Gopal Yadav did not inform the appellants or police. In his cross-examination, Sri Gopal Yadav submits that he did not remember whether jeep number was in English or Hindi. He was also unable to note down the number of scooter of deceased. He was also not remember the colour of the jeep. 10. In the above circumstances, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the testimony of Sri Gopal Yadav is not true and based on imagination as well as on news paper report. 11. He was also unable to note down the number of scooter of deceased. He was also not remember the colour of the jeep. 10. In the above circumstances, we agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the testimony of Sri Gopal Yadav is not true and based on imagination as well as on news paper report. 11. When it is so then we are of the view that accident occurred by unknown vehicle and covered by Section 161(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 where the compensation of Rs.25,000/- was fixed. The insurance company has not filed any appeal against the award, so compensation of Rs.25,000/- will have to be paid by the insurance company. 12. Hence, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal. The same is hereby sustained along with the reasons mentioned therein. 13. The appeal is dismissed.