JUDGMENT Vinod K. Sharma, J. (Oral).:- This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 4.10.2006, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), allowing the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the claimant/ respondents. 2. The claimants sought compensation on account of the death of Gurbachan Singh son of Gurdev Singh in a motor vehicular accident. 3. It was pleaded case of the claimants, that on 14.9.2001 at about 2.30 P.M., the deceased was going on foot from the side of Chandigarh towards Kharar on his left side of the road. When he reached near Kalgidhar Gurudwara Sahib in the area of Mundi Kharar, respondent No.1 came driving truck bearing registration No. CH-01-T-9637 rashly and negligently from the side of Chandigarh and struck against the deceased causing injuries. The injuries proved to be fatal. The deceased was said to be 45 years of age, and was “A” Class mason. The case of the claimants was that FIR was registered regarding this accident at police station Kharar, District Ropar. 4. Respondents No.1 & 2 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle had denied the accident and stated that it had not taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. It was pleaded case of the owner and driver that at the time of accident there was heavy rain and strong wind was blowing. Deceased was totally unmindful of the heavy vehicles on the road and suddenly appeared on the road. On seeing the offending truck, he became confused and perplexed and he himself struck against the truck without caring for the traffic rules. There was no fault on the part of the driver. 5. The claim was contested by the Insurance Company on the plea, that respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Other defences available under Section 149 of the Act were also taken. It was claimed that the claim was filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents No.1 & 2. The Insurance company denied the accident, in view of the fact that the FIR was filed being untraced. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. It was claimed that the claim was filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents No.1 & 2. The Insurance company denied the accident, in view of the fact that the FIR was filed being untraced. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues :- 1. Whether the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. CH-01-T-9637 by respondent No.1?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the claimants are entitled to and from which of the respondents?OPP 2-A. Whether the claim petition has been filed by the claimants in collusion with respondents No.1 & 2 as alleged? If so, its effect?OPR-3 3. Relief.” 7. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding, that the deceased had died due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. CH-01-T-9637 by respondent No.1. The claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,82,000/- (Rupees one lac and eighty two thousand only) along with interest. On additional issue No.2-A, finding was recorded that the claim petition had not been filed in collusion as claimed by respondent No.3. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance company has challenged the impugned award on the plea, that the learned Tribunal wrongly held that the deceased had died due to the rash and negligent driving of truck though no accident had taken place, as would be clear from the fact that FIR registered with respect to this accident did not disclose the number of the truck or the name of the driver, and ultimately FIR was filed being untraced. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the statement of RW-1 A.S. Vaish, who conducted investigation about the truthfulness of the accident in question and deposed that as per his investigation the claim petition was false. He also exhibited writing of Sarpanch of village Palsora, U.T. Chandigarh as Ex. R-2, to show that no persons of the names of Gurdev Singh or Gurbachan Singh resided in his village. He further deposed that the claimants were also not living at the address given in the claim petition. 10. He also exhibited writing of Sarpanch of village Palsora, U.T. Chandigarh as Ex. R-2, to show that no persons of the names of Gurdev Singh or Gurbachan Singh resided in his village. He further deposed that the claimants were also not living at the address given in the claim petition. 10. However, this plea of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted, in view of the positive finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, on the basis of admission by respondent No.1, claiming therein that the representatives of deceased had come to him and took a sum of Rs. 12,000/-(Rupees twelve thousand only) from him. The Learned Tribunal, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion, that this admission on the part of the driver proved his involvement in the accident, and death of the deceased. It also proved the identity of the legal representatives of the deceased Gurdev Singh, therefore, the investigation report carried out at the back of the claimants is of no consequence. Even the defence taken by the owner and driver to contest the claim, proved beyond any doubt that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. CH-01- T-9637 by respondent No.1, as deceased was said to be negligent in not following the road rules. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs. --------------------