AWARD 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 2. This is insurer's appeal against the award dated 10.07.2012 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, Distt. Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 138/11. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.51,47,000/- claimed by unfortunate widow, minor son and parents of deceased - Jagdish Dubey by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') for his death in the motor accident on 05.07.2011, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,36,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual payment. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held; the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Truck bearing registration No. CG 09-B-0618 by its driver i.e. respondent No.5 - Keshav Dewangan; Jagdish Dubey died on account of injuries sustained by him in the said accident; appellant/Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish the violation of policy conditions; and assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the claimants. 5. Shri Raj Awasthi. learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: as per FIR (Ex.P-1), the vehicle involved in the accident was an unidentified vehicle; statement of eye witness Naresh Singh Chauhan (A W-2) is not trustworthy and, therefore, the claimants have failed to establish involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and thus, the Tribunal has fallen in error in allowing the claimants claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. It was further contended, driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and so also the Tribunal has fallen in error in fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 6. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants supported the award impugned. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including award impugned. 8. 6. On the other hand, Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 4/claimants supported the award impugned. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including award impugned. 8. Admittedly, the appellant/Insurance Company failed to establish the plea taken by it in its written statement and also failed to establish the fact that driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and, therefore, the second contention raised by Mr. Awasthi, on the face, is devoid of merit. 9. The core question therefore arises for determination of this Court is whether or not the vehicle in question was involved in the accident. 10. Though, at the time of filing of FIR (Ex.P-1), registration number of offending vehicle was unknown and therefore, the report has been lodged against the unidentified vehicle. However, during investigation, the police has found, the Truck bearing registration No. CG 09-B-0618 was involved in the said accident; has seized the Truck and the same was taken on Supurdiginama by its owner i.e. respondent No. 6- Rajendra Kumar Mishra. 11. As per spot map (Ex.P-6), near the place of accident one Kirana Shop was situated. Village kotwar, who was sitting in the said shop at the time of accident, has seen the occurrence and also registration number of vehicle and the claimants have proved their case by examining him as AW-2. His statement stands un-rebutted. 12. For the reasons best known to the appellant/Insurance Company, it neither ex-mined any witness nor driver and owner of the vehicle to substantiate its plea raised before this Court regarding non Involvement of the vehicle in question in the said accident. 13. In view of above, in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly held that the vehicle in question was involved in the said accident and has rightly passed the award in favour of the claimants. 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.