JUDGMENT (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) This appeal, U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 16-12-2006, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Dehradun in M.A.C.T. Case No. 16 of 2006, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimants- appellants has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Arjun Singh (deceased) on 28.11.2005, at 8.00 p.m. after finishing his duty was going to his house and when he reached near I.S.B.T. Gate Dehradun on Saharanpur-Haridwar Bye-pass, a half body truck bearing registration No. HR-38-D-9933 came from Saharanpur side in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Arjun Sinngh due to which he sustained injuries and while being taken to hospital died in the way. The driver of the truck also ran away from the spot. The report of the accident was lodged by Constable Ummed Singh upon which a case crime No. 279/2005, U/S 304-A IPC was registered against unknown driver of unknown truck. The claimants who are widow, two major and two minor children of deceased Arjun Singh, filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 13,60,000/-. 3. The O.P. No.1 and 2, driver and owner of the offending truck contested the claim petition by filing joint W.S. pleading that no accident had occurred from the aforesaid truck. 4. The O.P. No.3 insurer of the truck also filed W.S. and alleged that the driver of the truck was not holding a valid driving license and the truck was not insured with it. 5. The learned tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of parties, framed following issues in the claim petition :- 1. Whether on 28-11-2005 at about 8.00p.m. at Hardwar Bye-pass Road, ISBT, Dehradun when the deceased Arjun Singh Negi was going to his house after his duty on foot, a truck No. HR-38D-9933 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, coming from Hardwar Bye-pass Road, dashed the deceased from back, causing serious injuries to the deceased resulting into his death in Doon Hospital, Dehradun?. 2. Whether the driver of truck No. HR-38D-9933 was not having a valid driving license at the time of aforesaid accident?. 3. Whether the aforesaid truck was not insured with the Insurance Company at the time of said accident?. 4. 2. Whether the driver of truck No. HR-38D-9933 was not having a valid driving license at the time of aforesaid accident?. 3. Whether the aforesaid truck was not insured with the Insurance Company at the time of said accident?. 4. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation due to the aforesaid accident, If so, how much and from which of the opposite parties?. Thereafter parties adduced evidence before the tribunal. 6. The learned tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties and considering the evidence on record gave a finding on issue No.1, that the claimants have failed to connect the offending truck with the accident leading to death of the deceased and it appears to be a case of hit and run. On the issue of valid driving license and insurance cover, the tribunal gave finding that the driver of the truck was possessing valid driving license and it was insured with the New India Assurance Company. However, on the basis of finding given on issue No.1, the claim petition was dismissed. 7. Feeling aggrieved the claimants have filed this appeal. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants has submitted that P.W.2, Suresh Rawat had seen the occurrence and he has given categorical statement before the tribunal narrating the 3 registration of the truck involved in the accident, but the tribunal has wrongly disbelieved his statement and committed manifest error by dismissing the claim petition. 10. The claimants have examined P.W.1, Smt.Laxmi Devi, claimant, P.W.2 Suresh Rawat and P.W.3, Krishn Lal Chhabra and also filed photo copies of Chick F.I.R., Post mortem report and certain other documents relating to LIC of the children of the deceased and also filed certificate issued by Krishn Lal Chhabra, the employer of the deceased certifying that the deceased was being paid Rs.6,000/- per month salary by him. The driver and owner of the truck bearing registration No.HR-38D-9933 refuted the allegation of the claimants that the deceased was hit by their truck and specifically pleaded that their truck did not involve in the accident whereas according to claimants the said accident took place from the aforesaid truck. 11. To connect the truck HR –38D-9933 with the accident, the claimants have produced P.W.2, Suresh Rawat. 11. To connect the truck HR –38D-9933 with the accident, the claimants have produced P.W.2, Suresh Rawat. According to this witness on 28.11.2005 at about 8-00 –8-15 P.M. he was driving his Motorlcycle and reached Hardwar Bye-pass and found that near ISBT Gate a truck bearing registration No. HR –38D-9933 was ahead of him and was being driven in a high speed and it hit the pedestrian and ran away. He further deposed that he informed the control room and also informed the truck number. In his cross-examination he has stated that he passed on the information to the control room from a PCO but he did not disclose his name to the control room. He further admitted that the deceased was not known to him from before but brother-in-law of the deceased Ranaji asked him to appear as a witness before the court. This witness on cross-examination by O.P. No.3 reiterated that Ranaji was not known to him from before and he never told him having witnessed the occurrence. This witness also admitted that there are several shops nearby the place of occurrence and several vehicles were moving on the road at the time of occurrence. 12. The report of the occurrence was not lodged by any family member of the deceased but the death on the road to the police was informed by one of the duty constable. It is mentioned in the report that Constable Ummed Singh while on duty at ISBT, received an information from passersby to the effect that an accident has taken place on By-pass road in which a person was lying there unconscious. On this information the constable reached to the place and found the deceased lying unconscious there, several persons had assembled there and on enquiry they could tell only that some truck hit the deceased and they on account of darkness could not see the registration number of the truck. There is manipulation on the front page of the Chick F.I.R.. In column No.2 it has been mentioned that the name and address of the driver is unknown. However, on the lower side of column No.2, registration number of the truck is written and thereafter it is again written that unknown truck hit the deceased Arjun Singh Negi. There is manipulation on the front page of the Chick F.I.R.. In column No.2 it has been mentioned that the name and address of the driver is unknown. However, on the lower side of column No.2, registration number of the truck is written and thereafter it is again written that unknown truck hit the deceased Arjun Singh Negi. The theory of witnessing the occurrence by P.W.2, Suresh Rawat is not supported by the contents of Chick F.I.R. The F.I.R. was lodged on the statement of Constable Ummed Singh, according to which this witness had stated that when he was on duty at ISBIT at about 8.10P.M. the pedestrians informed him that a person is lying wounded on ISBT- Haridwar Bye-pass, whereas P.W.2 Suresh Rawat had given statement that he had informed the control room from a PCO. The solitary testimony of P.W.2, Suresh Rawat has rightly been disbelieved by the tribunal. This witness has admitted that at the place of occurrence there are several shops and so many persons were moving on the road, but surprisingly enough no one came forward to tell identity of the offending vehicle. In the Chick F.I.R. Constable Ummed Singh has mentioned that when he reached the place of occurrence the persons standing there could not tell him the registration of the truck and they told that due to darkness they could not see the registration of the truck and at the same time in column No.2 of the Chick F.I.R. name of truck driver has been noted unknown and truck No. HR 38D-9933 has been written and in the next line it has been written that by unknown truck driver. In the top of Chick F.I.R. case crime No. 229/05 has been written lateron. When the informant Constable Ummed Singh had stated specifically that due to darkness the persons assembling at the place of occurrence could not see the registration number of the truck, then how the truck number has been noted in the Chick F.I.R. P.W.2, Suresh Rawat in his cross examination has admitted this fact that he did not know the deceased from before and when cross examined by O.P. No.3 he has specifically narrated that he Ranaji was not known to him from before and he never told him having witnessed the occurrence and brother-in-law of the deceased Ranaji had asked him to appear as a witness. Had this witness seen the occurrence he could have lodged the F.I.R. of the occurrence without any further delay and could have disclosed the registration number of the truck to others but he kept mum and this conduct of this witness points towards his unworthiness. According to P.W.2, Suresh Rawat he had informed the control room the registration number of the truck from PCO but this fact was not mentioned in the Chick F.I.R. by the police that any information was received in control room about the occurrence and registration of the truck was also informed to the control room. If the police had received any information of occurrence then there was no reason not to disclose this fact in the Chick F.I.R. Thus the statement of P.W.2, Suresh Rawat has rightly been disbelieved by the tribunal and in absence of reliable and convincing evidence pointing towards involvement of the above truck, the learned tribunal has rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants have failed to connect the Truck No. HR-38-D- 9933 with the occurrence and it seems to be a hit and run case. I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the finding arrived at by the tribunal. 13. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 14. The appeal is dismissed.