JUDGMENT : This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the award dated 22-06-2015 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur in case No. T.S.(MAC) 58 of 2013 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.96,600/- along with interest in favour of the claimant. 2. The petitioner Subi Chandra Tripura filed a claim petition in which it was alleged that on 26.12.2012 he had boarded one Mini Bus bearing registration No.TR-03-1284 and this bus overturned on the roadside near the church between Kalachara and Taikumba on Agartala-Sabroom National Highway. In the claim petition, it was also mentioned that the petitioner along with many others was traveling by boarding the vehicle in question to attend a meeting of the CPI(M) party when the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle. 3. Sri Sanju Kumar Sen, the owner of the Mini bus filed a reply which is very evasive in nature. In para-3 of the reply, it is denied that any alleged accident occurred on 26.12.2012 at 4-30 p.m. in between Kalachara and Taikumba near the church on the northern side of Kalachara hospital on Agartala-Sabroom road. All the allegations are denied but in para-4 of the petition it is stated that the vehicle was duly insured and driven by a duly licensed driver and if it is held that compensation is payable, then the Insurance Company is liable to pay the same. 4. The National Insurance Company Ltd. filed a reply and denied all the allegations made in the petition. A specific stand was taken that the claim filed was false. After trial the learned Tribunal has passed the award and hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company. 5. Sri S. Lodh, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, has urged that the award is totally illegal. It is submitted that from the evidence on record, it is apparent that the claimant and other persons were traveling in a Mini truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842. He submits that since that Mini truck was owned by one Sri Sadhan Tripura and was apparently not insured, a totally false case was made out that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was Mini bus bearing No.TR-03-1284. 6. He submits that since that Mini truck was owned by one Sri Sadhan Tripura and was apparently not insured, a totally false case was made out that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was Mini bus bearing No.TR-03-1284. 6. I had partly heard arguments on 29.02.2016 and had noted that immediately after the accident when the FIR was lodged, the number of the vehicle was shown to be TR-03-C-1842 and it was clearly mentioned that the vehicle is a truck. However, after many days the informant and the other witnesses changed their stand and stated that the vehicle involved in the accident was a Mini bus bearing registration No.TR-03-1284. Therefore, I had passed the following order on 29.02.2016:- “The main dispute in this case is whether the accident in question took place with vehicle bearing No. TR-03C-1842 which was a truck or with vehicle bearing No. TR-03-1284 which is a Mini Bus. Initially the FIR was lodged alleging that the vehicle involved in the accident was TR-03C-1842. However, later the informant got his statement recorded under Section 164(5) of Cr.P.C and not only changed the number of the vehicle but also changed the vehicle from a truck to a bus. During the course of the trial before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the insurance company moved an application in which it prayed that the Investigating Officer who initially investigated the case be called for and also the record of the District Divisional Fire Officer, Gomati District, Udaipur be called for. According to the insurance company, it was the Fire Service man who had immediately reached the spot and in their record also the vehicle involved was a truck and not a bus. A party may confuse a number of a vehicle but I find it difficult to believe that a party can confuse a bus with a truck. The number may change from 1842 to 1284 but prima facie I am of the opinion that a truck cannot turn into a bus or vice versa. I am indeed shocked by the manner in which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rejected this application filed by the insurance company. The only reason given is that the insurance company has to prove its case on its own evidence and the Investigating Officer of the Fire Service man is not the relevant witness in the case. I am indeed shocked by the manner in which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has rejected this application filed by the insurance company. The only reason given is that the insurance company has to prove its case on its own evidence and the Investigating Officer of the Fire Service man is not the relevant witness in the case. I fail to understand who else would be the relevant witnesses in the case. The evidence of the persons who immediately reached the spot is of the utmost importance and official record cannot be changed. Therefore, I direct that the Investigating Officer of the case shall appear with record of FIR No.88 of 2012 lodged with P.S. Manu Bazar. This record shall include the record of investigation and also the record of the criminal trial if any. Similarly, the Divisional Fire Officer, Gomati District, Udaipur shall appear along with the entire record relating to the Fire officials visiting the scene of the accident on 26.12.2012 along with the entire record. Both these officers shall appear along with the record in this Court on 15.03.2016. Registry to ensure that notices are serviced upon these witnesses before the next date.” 7. The whole dispute is whether the vehicle involved in the accident was truck bearing registration No.TR-03-C-1842 or a Mini bus bearing registration No.TR-03-1284. The FIR in this case was lodged at the instance of one Rahul Ch. Tripura and the FIR reads as follows:- “Today on 26.12.12 in the afternoon my father along with other 30/35 persons was coming on a truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842 from Taikumba village to Kalachara to attend a public meeting convened by CPI(M) party. While the vehicle reached near a church on the northern side of Kalachara hospital on the National Highway at about 4-30 p.m., it was overturned. As a result, my father Sadhan Tripura (aged 40 years), son of Late Dinabandhu Tripura and Jamadhan Tripura, son of Sri Sebadhan Tripura died on the spot. Due to the accident, 30/35 persons sustained grievous injuries and admitted in Kalachara hospital. Out of them, 20/22 persons were referred to T.S.D. Hospital, Udaipur. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. I pray for proper justice.” 8. This FIR clearly shows that the vehicle involved was a truck. Due to the accident, 30/35 persons sustained grievous injuries and admitted in Kalachara hospital. Out of them, 20/22 persons were referred to T.S.D. Hospital, Udaipur. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the aforesaid vehicle. I pray for proper justice.” 8. This FIR clearly shows that the vehicle involved was a truck. It would be pertinent to mention that though the accident is alleged to have taken place at 4.30 p.m., the FIR was lodged at 7.30 p.m. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court; the officers of the Fire Service Department appeared in Court. They have also produced their record which has been exhibited in this Court as Exhibit-C-1 series. This record shows that on 26.12.2012 a telephone call was received from Manubazar Police Station to the effect that D.I. Truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842 owned by Sadhan Tripura had met with an accident. This call was received at 17.15 hours and the Fire Service officers reached the place of occurrence at 17.26 hours, i.e. within 11 minutes. It is also mentioned that the place of incident is 11 Kms. from the Fire Service Station. The record of the Fire Service also shows that when the Fire Service officers reached the spot, they saw one D.I. Truck bearing registration No.TR-03-C-1842 had fallen down on the roadside and three persons were seriously injured. It is also mentioned that before the Fire Service vehicle arrived, the local persons had rescued the injured persons and sent them to Kalachara Hospital by public vehicle. On the request of the National Insurance Company Ltd., the Divisional Fire Officer, Gomati District, Udaipur had prepared this report. This report was sought to be exhibited by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal but the Tribunal did not permit the Insurance Company to prove this report and, therefore, grave injustice was done to the Insurance Company. By the order quoted above, I had permitted this report to be produced. Sri Ganesh Debbarma, the author of the report, was also examined. He stated that he had prepared this report on the basis of the Special Service Report prepared immediately after the occurrence by the officers of the Fire Service Department. The original Special Service Report signed by Bidya Sadhan Jamatia has been exhibited as Exhibit-C-2. Sri Ganesh Debbarma, the author of the report, was also examined. He stated that he had prepared this report on the basis of the Special Service Report prepared immediately after the occurrence by the officers of the Fire Service Department. The original Special Service Report signed by Bidya Sadhan Jamatia has been exhibited as Exhibit-C-2. This report appears to have been prepared immediately after the accident and this report clearly reflects that the Fire Service officials reached the spot at 17.26 hours and when the Fire Station staff arrived at the spot, they had seen one D.I. Truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842 which had fallen down on the roadside. It was also stated that three persons had sustained serious injuries. A copy of the occurrence book was also produced on record which shows that at 17.15 hours, a special call was received from Manubazar Police Station that an accident had taken place at Kalachara main road and, therefore, the Fire Service people proceeded to the spot and on the spot they saw the truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842 lying on the roadside and the three seriously injured persons were (i) Sri Sadhan Tripura, aged about 45 years, (ii) Sri Jamadhan Tripura, aged 45 years and (iii) Birpe Mahan Tripura, aged 70 years. 28 other persons received less serious injuries and the local persons had taken the injured to the hospital in another vehicle. 9. It would be pertinent to mention here that one of the injured persons Sadhan Tripura appears to be the owner of the truck bearing No.TR-03-C-1842. The FIR was lodged by his son Rahul Ch. Tripura on the date of the accident itself. The contents of the complaint have been quoted hereinabove. The contents of the FIR clearly show that Rahul Ch. Tripura had stated that his father along with 30/35 other persons were traveling in the truck to attend a CPI(M) meeting. From the police record, it is apparent that the meeting was to be addressed by Sri Jitendra Choudhury, the then Forest Minister of the State. In this FIR, it is not stated that Rahul Ch. Tripura came to know about the accident from somebody else. The FIR is written in such a manner as if Rahul Ch. Tripura himself was present and knew all the facts of the accident. In this FIR, it is not stated that Rahul Ch. Tripura came to know about the accident from somebody else. The FIR is written in such a manner as if Rahul Ch. Tripura himself was present and knew all the facts of the accident. Here it would also be pertinent to note that Sadhan Tripura, father of Rahul Ch.Tripura is the owner of the truck in question. Therefore, he could not have made a mistake about the truck number or the fact that the vehicle involved was a truck. 4(four) days later, Rahul Ch. Tripura changed his statement and got his statement recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C. in which he stated that on 26.12.2012 his father along with 10/14 persons was traveling to attend a CPI(M) meeting by Mini bus bearing No.TR-03-1284. He states that he heard about this accident from the people who were attending the public meeting convened by the CPI (M) party. However, no names of such person were given. While appearing in Court Rahul Ch. Tripura again improved his statement and stated that he was informed by Sri Haricharan Tripura and Sri Lakhidhan Tripura and other villagers about the accident. The statement of Rahul Ch. Tripura does not inspire confidence. He is obviously a liar. In the FIR it was not stated that he had come to know about the accident from any other person. Thereafter, he got his statement recorded after 5(five) days in which he not only changed the number of the vehicle but the vehicle was changed from a truck to a bus. It is apparent that because the truck was owned by none else than his father and because his father was also traveling in the truck, he realized or must have been legally advised that the burden to pay the compensation would not fall upon the Insurance Company because passengers cannot be carried in a truck which is a goods vehicle and, therefore, this false story was set up that a bus was involved. 10. The learned trial Court believed the statements of the claimant and Rahul Ch. Tripura and did not even permit the Insurance Company to lead evidence. 10. The learned trial Court believed the statements of the claimant and Rahul Ch. Tripura and did not even permit the Insurance Company to lead evidence. Therefore, I had recorded the evidence of the Fire Service Officer which is already referred to above and had also recorded the statement of Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma who was the Police Officer who had recorded the FIR and had investigated the matter. The statement of Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma was recorded on two days. On 18.4.2016 Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma stated that on 26.12.2012 he was posted as S.I. at Manubazar Police Station and he received a written complaint from Rahul Ch. Tripura about the accident of a mini truck bearing registration No.TR-03-C-1842 on the basis of which he recorded FIR No.88 of 2012 under Sections 279/338/304(A) of IPC. He stated that after he recorded the FIR, then he went to the place of occurrence. He was very evasive in giving many replies to the questions put by the Court. When he was specifically asked whether Sadhan Tripura was the owner of the truck, he stated that he could not admit or deny this fact. When asked whether this truck had been used to bring people for the rally of the CPI(M), he again gave a very evasive answer but he stated that he had recorded the gist of the FIR in the following terms:- “Gist of FIR:- On 26-12-2012 evening there was a Mass meeting of CPIM of Kalachara where Sri Jitendra Chowdhury, Forest Minister Tripura proposed to attend the meeting while supporters of CPIM from Tuikumba are proceeding with TR 03-C-1842 mini truck at that time at about 1630 hours in between Kalachara and Tuikumba on NH 44 road met an accident due to rush and negligence driving of the driver. As a result 38 passengers received injury and shifted to Kalachara PHC. At Kalachara PHC above two injured persons died. Thereafter 22 persons referred to TSD hospital, UDP.” He also stated that he reached the place of occurrence at about 7.55 p.m. and when he reached the spot, there was no truck or other vehicle on the spot. He was asked what effort he made to trace out this truck and then he replied that he had engaged a source to trace out the truck. He was asked what effort he made to trace out this truck and then he replied that he had engaged a source to trace out the truck. He was asked a question as to what happened to the truck whether it fell down into a ditch or whether it fell down on the side of the road. The witness remained silent and did not answer the question and then stated that he does not know because he did not see any vehicle. Next he was asked whether he met anybody at the spot and this time he stated that there was no person at the spot. He also stated that he had again recorded the statement of Rahul Ch. Tripura after 5 days and he recorded the statements of other witnesses almost more than a month later on 04.02.2013. He could give no explanation as to why he did not record the statement of the witnesses of more than a month. The following specific question was put to the witness:- “Question:- When Rahul Ch. Tripura changed the statement after 4 (four) days and said that the vehicle involved in the accident was not a truck, but a mini bus, why did you not examine any of the fire service officials to find out who was the true culprits?” The witness remained silent and did not answer the question. Therefore, after recording the aforesaid statement of Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma, I felt that the statement may not be wholly correct because in view of the demeanor of the witness I felt that it may not be totally true. Therefore, the Registrar General was directed to ask the Police Station Manubazar to produce the G.D. Entry book for the period 26.12.2012 to 31.12.2012. This book was produced on the next date and the G.D. Entry No.885 and 889 dated 26.12.2012 read as follows:- “G.D.E. No.885: 1640 hrs. This time received an information by H/C Pravat Tripura over telephone who was on duty at Kalachara market to the effect that today on 26/12/12 at about 1630 hours a road traffic accident took place at Kalachara near by Christian Church. As a result large number of people received bleeding injuries on their persons. Noted in G.D and self, S.I. D.J Debbarma with staffs left for Kalachara to verify the matter. Charge of P/S will remain S.I. D. Chattarjee within all govt. As a result large number of people received bleeding injuries on their persons. Noted in G.D and self, S.I. D.J Debbarma with staffs left for Kalachara to verify the matter. Charge of P/S will remain S.I. D. Chattarjee within all govt. properties No A/P in the P/S custody.” “G.D.E. No.889: 1800 hrs. Sentry has been changed in due time by his next reliever with all govt. properties. No A/P in the P/S custody. This time S.I. D.J. Debbarma along with P/S staffs retd. P/S after verify MNB P/S GDE NO-885, Dt-26/12/12.” 11. GD Entry No.885 was recorded at 1640 hours, i.e. 4.40 p.m. and GD Entry No.889 had been recorded at 6 p.m. This clearly shows that the statement of Sri D.J. Debbarma that he had reached the place of occurrence at 7.55 p.m. is absolutely false. His earlier statement that he came to know about the accident only when the complaint was filed is also absolutely false. The G.D. Entry shows that information about the accident was received at 4.40 p.m. and immediately S.I. D.J. Debbarma along with staff of the Police left for Kalachara to verify the matter. Therefore, they must have reached the place of occurrence within 15 to 20 minutes, i.e. before the Fire Service staff arrived. If the officials of the Fire Service staff could see the truck, how could the Police Officials not see the truck? This clearly showed that Sri D.J. Debbarma had made a false statement in Court and when he was confronted with these two G.D. Entries, he stated that on the previous day, i.e. 18.4.2016 he was perplexed. He was then asked a clear-cut question whether the statement made by him on 18.4.2016 was incorrect or correct. He then replied as follows:- “The statement made by me yesterday was incorrect. After perusal of the G.D. Entry I state that at about 4.40 p.m. I had received information about the accident and thereafter, I visited the spot of the accident and I returned from the spot of the accident to the police station at 6 p.m.” Thereafter, the following question was put to him:- “Court question :- Now tell me the truth what was the type of vehicle involved in the accident and did you see the vehicle? Answer :- I saw the vehicle. It was a truck.” 12. This witness was cross-examined but in the cross-examination nothing has come out. Answer :- I saw the vehicle. It was a truck.” 12. This witness was cross-examined but in the cross-examination nothing has come out. From the aforesaid facts, it is more than apparent that the vehicle involved in the accident was truck No.TR-03-C-1842. This truck was being used to ferry the supporters of the CPI (M) party to attend the rally being addressed by Sri Jitendra Choudhury, the then Forest Minister. Unfortunately, the truck turned over and three persons died; one of them being the owner of the truck Sadhan Tripura. The FIR also reflected that the vehicle involved in the accident was a truck but it appears that after 3/4 days the legal heirs of Sadhan Tripura and the other claimants realized that if they pursue the truth that the accident had occurred with the truck, they would not get compensation from the Insurance Company and the burden would fall on the legal heirs of Sadhan Tripura who would not be able to pay this amount. It is more than obvious that to avoid this, a false case was set up that the vehicle involved in the accident was a bus. 13. What is most unfortunate is that the police officials willingly became a part and parcel of this conspiracy. Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma in his statement recorded in the High Court has stated that he reached the spot immediately after the accident and saw the vehicle which was a truck. When the statement of Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma was recorded, he had started trembling and he apologized and stated that he had helped making this change under pressure. This Court would have taken very serious action against Sri Dhruba Jyoti Debbarma but I feel that he can be let off with a warning to be careful in future but the copy of this judgment shall be placed on his service record. I am letting off this young officer only for the reason that finally he has told the truth in Court and also for the reason that it appears that he was pressurized by people much higher up, both in the police and other people in power and was compelled to act in an illegal manner. 14. This trouble has occurred because the FIR was not lodged immediately. 14. This trouble has occurred because the FIR was not lodged immediately. As soon as the police officials had reached the spot, they should have noted down all the facts and lodged the FIR. It appears that under political and other pressure, the police officers were not permitted to do their duty. If the rule of law is to be maintained in our country, then police officers must be permitted to do their duty. The uniform must be respected. At the same time, police officers should not willingly join with claimants and others to falsify the facts of the case only with a view to fasten the liability on Insurance Companies. Most of the Insurance Companies in India are Public Sector Insurance Companies and they are trustees of public money. The manner in which the liability has been shifted on the Insurance Company shows total dishonesty by police and other officials. At the same time, I must commend the Fire Service Officials who did not change their record. 15. In view of the above discussion, I am clearly of the view that the accident occurred with truck No.TR-03-C-1842 and not with bus No.TR-03-1284. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award of the learned Tribunal is set aside. 16. Copy of this judgment shall be sent to the Director General of Police who shall ensure that this sort of occurrence does not take place in the future. He shall also ensure that police officers are instructed not to change the facts of the case just to suit some individuals. 17. A copy of the judgment shall also be sent to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gomati District, Udaipur who may be dealing with other matters arising out of the same accident and he shall dispose of those cases in light of what has been decided in this appeal. 18. Send down the lower court records forthwith.