Hon'ble S.C. Chaurasia,J.:- Heard Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shakeel Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents. The instant appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned award dated 21.02.2006, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Unnao in Claim Petition No. 66 of 2004. In brief, the facts of the case are that the claimant-injured Manoj Kumar along with his friend Dinesh Chandra was going on motor-cycle No. U.P. 35D/6802 from Durgaganj to Bhagwant Nagar. At about 5.00 P.M., when they reached Bhagwant Nagar Baksha Road near Pithai Kheda brick kiln, the Tractor No. U.P. 35A/9925 coming from reverse direction driven rashly and negligently by the driver, hit the motor-cycle. In consequence thereof, Manoj Kumar suffered grievous injuries and he was alleged to admitted in U.H.M. District Hospital, Kanpur. On account of injuries, he was referred to M.R. Hospital, Shiv Katra, G.T. Road, Kanpur and was admitted there. He remained in the hospital from 31.10.2003 to 12.11.2003. Thereafter, again he was admitted for further treatment in Raksha Nursing Home, Harjender Nagar, Kanpur and remained under medical treatment from 16.11.2003 to 25.11.2003. He has also undergone surgery and thereafter discharged on 25.11.2003. The claim petition was filed for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6 lacs on account of injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident. The Tribunal has framed issues with regard to the accident, insurance note cover and driving licence etc. Before the Tribunal, copy of the F.I.R. as 6-Ga, S.I.R. Carban copy as 39-Ga, X-ray report as 40Ga/1, injury report as 40Ga/2 and certificate with regard to admission in the hospital along with discharge certificate have been filed. Paper No. 29Ga is disability certificate, which shows disability to the extent of 40%. Before Tribunal, the claimant-injured, Manoj Kumar appeared as P.W.1, whereas on behalf of the respondents, Rajesh Kumar appeared as D.W.1. It may be noted that Rajesh Kumar is not an eye witness. The tractor owner took a defence that the accident was not caused by the tractor. However, the Tribunal has relied upon the statement of claimant-injured, Manoj Kumar along with other documentary evidence. It may be noted that Rajesh Kumar is not an eye witness. The tractor owner took a defence that the accident was not caused by the tractor. However, the Tribunal has relied upon the statement of claimant-injured, Manoj Kumar along with other documentary evidence. While assailing the impugned award, it has been submitted by Sri Anand Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant that the F.I.R. was lodged after 21 days of the incident and no independent witness was appeared to substantiate the factum of the accident. It has also been stated that there is breach of condition of policy since the tractor was used for carrying goods and was not concerned with the agricultural activities. On behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that merely because the F.I.R. was lodged at belated stage, it does not make out a case to dis-believe the statement of the eye-witness who suffered injuries in the accident in question. It has also been stated that the tractor was duly insured by the appellant- New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the driver had valid driving licence. Keeping in view the disability to the extent of 40%, the Tribunal has awarded compensation in terms of the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. From the perusal of the impugned award and the evidence produced before the Tribunal, it appears that the claimant-Manoj Kumar had suffered serious injuries including fracture of femur. The nature of injuries does not seem to make out a case of fabrication. While filing written statement, the appellant had denied the factum of the injuries, but, on the basis of evidence led by the claimants, particularly, documentary evidence on record, which contains X-ray report coupled with injury report, there appears no doubt that the claimant-Manoj Kumar has suffered serious injuries in the accident in question. The owner of the tractor took the plea of ali bi with regard to the accident, but, in alternative, his plea was that the vehicle was insured by the appellant. In any case, the accident is proved, the liability shall be on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. There appears no reason to disbelieve the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the claimants. In any case, the accident is proved, the liability shall be on the Insurance Company to pay the compensation. There appears no reason to disbelieve the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the claimants. In case appellant is of the view that some documents have been fabricated or accident does not occur, then burden was on the appellant to prove the same by leading cogent and trust-worthy evidence. In the present case, the appellant has failed to discharge its obligation to substantiate the defence taken by it during the course of trial before the Tribunal. Admittedly, since the tractor was insured and the driver was having valid driving licence, there is no reason to disbelieve the over whelming evidence on record with regard to the accident. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned award. The appeal lacks merit and is dismissed accordingly. We have been informed that the appellant has already deposited the entire amount before the Tribunal. However, balance, if any, that shall be deposited by the appellant within two months in terms of the impugned award. Let amount be released in favour of the claimants-respondents by the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of deposition of the entire amount. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the appellant in this Court shall be remitted by the registry to the Tribunal forthwith.