Judgment 1. The first respondent insurance company in MVC.No.2335/2001 on the file of MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-14) has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 29.3.2007 so far as it pertains to saddling liability to pay compensation on it. 2. This is yet another classic case where compensation is awarded for the death of tort feasor. Admittedly, deceased M. Arunkumar @ Arun was rider of motor cycle bearing No.KA-10/E.2464 along with two pillion riders sitting on said vehicle. The compliant, which is part of FIR, Ex.P1 discloses that one of the pillion rider namely, Pradeep has lodged a complaint on the intervening night of 5th and 6th of July 2000 stating that said Pradeep along with his friend Sampath Kumar were travelling as pillion riders on motor cycle bearing No.KA-10/E.2464 which was driven by deceased Arun Kumar, who drove the same in rash and negligent manner dashing against a vehicle which was stopped near the railway level crossing at Allalasandra Check Post. 3. The accident is not in dispute. The fact that all the three persons were travelling on the offending motor cycle is also not in dispute. Further it is not in dispute that deceased himself was the rider of motor cycle without having valid driving licence, with two persons sitting on the pillion seat of motor cycle not having proper control over the same has gone and hit the said motor cycle to a stationery lorry, thereby causing death for himself and injuries to others. 4. It seen that claim petition is filed by the parents of deceased Arun Kumar under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contending that deceased Arun Kumar died in a road traffic accident involving motor cycle bearing No.KA-10/E.2464 and seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of lorry to which the deceased went and rammed his motor cycle. In the proceedings before Tribunal it is seen that the Tribunal by accepting the material evidence on record has allowed the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.4,22,400/- payable with interest at 6%pa., from the date of petition till payment saddling the liability to pay the same, the insurance company has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award. 5. Heard the Counsel for appellant and contesting respondents. Perused the judgment impugned with reference to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. 5. Heard the Counsel for appellant and contesting respondents. Perused the judgment impugned with reference to pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record. On going through the same, it is clearly seen that though there is material evidence on record to demonstrate that deceased himself was the tort-feasor, there is an attempt on the part of Presiding Officer in suppressing the same in the judgment by wrongfully allowing the claim petition which is seen not only in this judgment but in several judgments of the Presiding Officer of that particular Tribunal which cast doubt regarding the integrity of said Officer. It is also seen that the judgment passed in the connected claim petition in respect of other claim arising out of the same accident which is being dismissed by the MACT, Bangalore (SCCH-7) was brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. Though copy of the said judgment is taken on record by the Tribunal as could be seen from the records, the Presiding Officer has completely ignored the same and deliberately attempted to support the illegal claim made by the parents of deceased Arun Kumar. In that view of matter, the judgment impugned is required to be set aside. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by insurance company is allowed. The judgment and award dated 29.3.2007 passed in MVC.No.2355/2001 on the file of MACT, Bangalore (SCCH014) is set aside. While doing so, a copy of this judgment is ordered to be placed before the Administrative Judge within whose jurisdiction the Presiding Officer, namely Smt. Uma Mathad, is presently discharging as judicial officer for information and necessary action, which the Administrative judge would take as be deems fit. In view of the appeal being allowed, the amount in deposit is ordered to be released in favour of appellant.