JUDGMENT 1. - In this appeal filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. against the award dated 3.8.2013 passed in Motor Accident Claim No.128/2009 (421/2011), it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 10,89,000/- in favour of claimants/respondents but identity of vehicle involved in the accident was not duly proved and it has also been argued that the Tribunal has blindly relied upon the statement of Pawan Kumar the alleged eye witness, who has later on in criminal case given a different statement on 13.11.2013. Copy of the statement of the criminal case has been taken on record. 2. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. I have also perused the following judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents. (1) N.K.V. Gros. (P) Ltd. v. M. Karumal Ammal and Ors. 1980(3) SCC 457 3. In this case, it was held that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal should not succumb to niceties, technicalities and mystic maybes. (2) United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Aamna Khatun and Ors. - 2013(3) DNJ (Raj.) 1080 4. In this case, benefit was given to the claimants of the infirmities in the case of Insurance Company. (3) Singari Devi and Ors. v. Usman Khan and Ors. 2014(1) DNJ (Raj.) 218 5. In this case matter was remanded by Rajasthan High Court because the Tribunal failed to decide issue regarding negligence of the driver and quantum of compensation. (4) New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Sekar 2010 Accident Claim Journal (Madras) 2390 5. In this case, it was held that the judgment of the criminal court cannot be relied upon in claim proceedings on its face value. 6. Apparently there are contradictions in the two statements of Pawan Kumar, but claim of the legal representatives of deceased Ashok Kumar cannot be dismissed solely because witness Pawan Kumar is found not reliable. In this case, it was held that the judgment of the criminal court cannot be relied upon in claim proceedings on its face value. 6. Apparently there are contradictions in the two statements of Pawan Kumar, but claim of the legal representatives of deceased Ashok Kumar cannot be dismissed solely because witness Pawan Kumar is found not reliable. In the circumstances of the case, the award dated 3.8.2013 passed by MACT, Kotputli, District, Jaipur deserves to be quashed, which is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the said court with the direction that the said court should call the decided file of criminal case No. 292/2009, State v. Puran (decided on 20.1.2015) from the court of ACJM, Kotputli and then again record the supplementary statement of Pawan Kumar by referring to his previous statements to him and also examine the Investigation Officer/s of the case as to how he/they had come to the conclusion that the Jeep No. RJ02/C-0987 was the vehicle involved in the accident in question preferably within three months from today and then the said court is again supposed to pass a fresh award without being prejudiced by its earlier judgment/award dated 3.8.2013. Merits of the case will not be disturbed by this order. Both parties are directed to appear before MACT, Kotputli on 8.6.2015. 7. The appeal stands disposed of as mentioned above.Appeal disposed of. *******