BHAGWATI, J.—Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17th September, 2011, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track), Tonk, decreed an amount of Rs. 60,983/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1 and against the appellant-Insurance as also the respondents No. 2 and 3, jointly and severally. 2. The necessary facts giving rise to the instant appeal, in brief, are that on 20th February, 2007, at about 10:30 pm, the respondent-claimant Girdhar Singh was coming from village Ramma after filling gravel in a truck bearing Registration No RJ-14-2G-0524. It is averred that when the driver of the truck Kapil Dev was taking out his vehicle from a river, he drove the same rashly and negligently and suddenly emerged at a fast speed and hit him, as a result of which, he sustained injuries on the elbow of his right hand, toe of the foot and other parts of the body. One FIR of this case came to be registered at Police Station Niwai. The Police, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet and sent the accused for trial. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has endeavoured to assail the impugned award on the ground that the said truck was falsely entailed in accident, which stands proved from the fact that the FIR of the case was lodged one day after the incident. Learned counsel further canvassed that it was not proved as to from where the injured Girdhar Singh suddenly appeared on the scene of occurrence. Neither he was a conductor on the truck nor he was a driver, then how was he there. Hence, even his presence casts doubt on the spot. Thus, the claim petition is found to be fictitious and fake, for which the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation, as such, the impugned award deserves to be dismissed. 5. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to take all these defences in motor accident claims cases. It is very well settled that the Insurance Company can have only those defences, which are permissible under Section 49 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 5. At the very outset, it is relevant to record that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to take all these defences in motor accident claims cases. It is very well settled that the Insurance Company can have only those defences, which are permissible under Section 49 of the Motor Vehicle Act. From a bare reading of the facts of the case and critical analysis made by the learned Tribunal, the facts of the case are not found to be suspicious nor is it suggested that the injured respondent did not sustain any injury in the said accident. The learned Tribunal is found to have discussed all the facts and the evidence, ad longum, and arrived at finding basing on evidence. The impugned award is also found to be just and apposite. It does not suffer from any infirmity. The learned counsel for the appellant has utterly failed to convince me to take a contrary view to that of the view taken by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I do not find any ground to interfere with the same and the appeal being bereft of any merit deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. 6. For the reasons stated above, the appeal fails and the same being bereft of any substance stands dismissed in limine. 7. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application does not survive and the same also stands dismissed, accordingly.