Judgment K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.08.2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Main], Bhavnagar in M.A.C.P. No. 287/1998, whereby the claim petition was partly allowed and the original claimants were awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,57,500/- together with proportionate costs and interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the application till its realization. 2. The facts in brief are that on 23.02.1998 at around 0330 hrs., while respondent no. 1 was going on his cycle and when he reached near Shantilal Shah High School near Haluriya Chowk, at that time respondent no. 2 came from the opposite direction by driving his scooter bearing No. GJ-4L-3510 in a rash and negligent manner dashed with the cycle. As a result of which, respondent no. 1 sustained severe bodily injuries. Later on, respondent no. 1 filed claim petition, which came to be partly allowed by way of the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellant Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has mainly contended that the Tribunal erred in appreciating the fact that the accident in question had not occurred by use of the motor vehicle on a public place, but the injuries were sustained while working in the diamond factory. He therefore, contended that the Tribunal’s finding that the injured claimant sustained injury in a vehicular accident and insurance company is liable is erroneous. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent claimant supported the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that impugned award passed by the Tribunal is just and appropriate. 5. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Having gone through the records of the case, it appears that the Tribunal has held the appellant Insurance Company liable by mainly placing reliance upon the medical evidence on record in the form of oral evidence of Dr. Jagdeep Kakadia, who has been examined at Exhibit-71. The said Doctor has produced the medical certificate vide Exhibit-72. At this stage it is pertinent to note that in his examination-in-chief, the Doctor has categorically deposed that the respondent claimant who had come to his clinic on 23.02.1998 in the noon hrs., for taking treatment at that time, he was accompanied by more than 4-5 persons. The said Doctor has produced the medical certificate vide Exhibit-72. At this stage it is pertinent to note that in his examination-in-chief, the Doctor has categorically deposed that the respondent claimant who had come to his clinic on 23.02.1998 in the noon hrs., for taking treatment at that time, he was accompanied by more than 4-5 persons. He had sustained injuries on his right eye. When enquired about the history of the accident, the persons who had accompanied the claimant had informed him that the claimant had sustained injuries while working in a Diamond Polishing Factory. It may be noted that the Tribunal even after considering the above evidence of said Dr. Kakadia came to the conclusion that the victim had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 25% for the body as a whole and thereafter, proceeded to compute compensation. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the medical history Exhibit-37 clearly states that the claimant had sustained injuries on his right eye while working in diamond polishing factory. The said certificate has been issued on 23.02.1998 which the date on which the alleged accident is said to have taken place. However, the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the injuries were sustained by the claimant in the alleged vehicular accident. Considering the medical evidence on record in the form of oral evidence of Dr. Kakadia at Exhibit-71 and the certificate at Exhibit-37 it has to be accepted that the claimant has sustained injuries on his right eye while working in a diamond polishing factory and not on account of any vehicular accident. Had he sustained the injuries in a vehicular accident, then the said fact would have been reflected in the medical certificate issued to him. However, that is not the case. Another notable aspect is that the complaint in connection with the alleged vehicular accident came to be filed on 11.03.1998 that is almost after a delay of 11 days and that to the said complaint has not been filed by the victim by has been filed by one Babubhai Murji Patel. Here it is required to be noted that the said Babubhai Murji has not been examined by the claimant in support of his case before the Tribunal for the reasons best known to him. 6. Here it is required to be noted that the said Babubhai Murji has not been examined by the claimant in support of his case before the Tribunal for the reasons best known to him. 6. Considering the factual aspect of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the claimant had sustained injuries in question during the course of employment in the diamond polishing factory and not in any vehiclular accident. In my opinion, the Tribunal has committed serious error by holding the appellant Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is quashed and set aside only qua the extent of imposition of liability upon the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of compensation. It is, however, observed that if the amount deposited before the Tribunal is already withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be recovered from the original claimants and not from the owner of the vehicle. It is however observed that the satisfaction of the security shall be recovered from the claimant. If the amount has not been withdrawn by the original claimants, the same shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.