JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent No. 1 and Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent No.2. 2. By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant has questioned the legality of the judgment and award dated 29.08.2011 delivered in T.S.(MAC) No.448/2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.4, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The appellant has submitted that the involvement of the vehicle (Auto-Truck) bearing No. TR-01J-0637 cannot be believed for overwhelming evidence in this regard. The alleged incident took place on 03.01.2006 and the information was lodged in the Airport police station on the same day i.e. on 03.01.2006 by one Smt. Purnima Debnath, stating inter alia that, when her younger sister, namely Smt. Anima Debnath and her aunt, namely Smt. Swapna Debnath, were travelling towards Kalibazar via Gandhigram from North Ramnagar by riding the motorcycle bearing registration No.TR-01E-9333 of Jaharlal Nama Das, one Auto-truck came speedily and rashly from the opposite direction and hit the said motorcycle. As a result of that accident, the biker and the pillion-riders sustained severe injuries. Immediately they were transported to the GBP Hospital, Agartala. Though the biker died, the two pillion-riders had to undergo treatment in the GBP hospital, Agartala. 4. On receipt of such information, Airport P.S. Case No. 02/2006 under Sections 279/304A of the IPC was registered and later on a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, being T.S.(MAC) No.448/2007, claiming compensation for death of the biker, Jaharlal Nama Das, by his wife Smt. Archana Nama Das, the claimant-respondent No.1 herein. 5. Even though in the written information lodged in the Airport police station, no description of the offending vehicle, which had allegedly dashed the motorcycle was not disclosed, but in the claim petition the said vehicle (Auto-truck) has been identified with its registration No.TR-01J-0637. The owner of the said vehicle was impleaded in the claim petition alongwith its previous owner. The said owner submitted a separate written objection, clearly stating that the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01J-0637 was not involved in the said accident and its involvement on the basis of the said statement has been refuted by the owner. 6. The owner of the said vehicle was impleaded in the claim petition alongwith its previous owner. The said owner submitted a separate written objection, clearly stating that the vehicle bearing registration No. TR-01J-0637 was not involved in the said accident and its involvement on the basis of the said statement has been refuted by the owner. 6. The appellant, Insurance Company however, by filing their objection has stated that the said Auto-truck was under valid insurance coverage. In the inquiry as conducted by the Tribunal, the claimant adduced 2(two) witnesses, namely Smt. Archana Nama Das (PW.1) and Smt. Swapna Debnath (PW.2). The claimant had adduced some documentary evidence, such as, Death Certificate and the FIR dated 03.01.2006 etc. (Exbt.1 series). The owner of the vehicle had also adduced some documents, such, the Certificate of Registration, Driving Licence of the driver and the copy of the Insurance Policy etc., which were also admitted in the evidence and marked as Exbt.5 series. 7. Smt. Archana Nama Das (PW.1) has stated in the evidence that, in the accident which occurred on 03.01.2006, her husband, aged about 35 years, died while he was driving his bike and the bike was dashed by another Auto-truck bearing registration No.TR-01J-0637. Her husband, according to PW.1, was a businessman and used to earn Rs. 8,000 per month. She denied the suggestion that the said Auto-truck was not involved in the accident and her husband did not succumb to the injuries received in the said accident. But PW.1 admittedly was not the eye-witness. 8. Smt. Swapna Debnath (PW.2) is the eye-witness of the said accident. She has stated as follows : “That on 03.01.2006 at about 17.30 hours when the deceased Jaharlal Nama Das going towards Kalibazar rom my house i.e. from Uttar Ramnagar via Gandhigram Bazar by riding his own Motor Bike bearing Regd. No.TR-01-E-9333 at that time I also boarded back side of the bike as a pillion rider and when the said bike reached near Khataltali at that time on natures call he kept the motor cycle standing to the extreme left side of the road and attending the same to standing behind the bike then suddenly one Auto Truck bearing Regd. No. TR-01-J-0637 coming from opposite direction rash and negligently with high speed and dashed the deceased and myself and fled away from spot. No. TR-01-J-0637 coming from opposite direction rash and negligently with high speed and dashed the deceased and myself and fled away from spot. As a result of said accident both of us received grievous injury and thereafter with the help of local people both of us were brought to G.B. Hospital but the best efforts of doctors, the deceased succumbed to his injury on 03.01.2006.” This court is only making reference to those parts of the evidence, which are relevant to the grounds of objection as raised in this appeal. According to PW.2, when the motorcycle was in a stationary condition and the biker, Jaharlal Nama Das was attending nature’s call, the said Auto-truck coming from the opposite direction dashed her and the biker and thereafter fled away from the spot. 9. Strangely enough, the informant who lodged the FIR, was not examined in the inquiry. But from Exbt.1 series, when this court reads the content of the FIR, it appears that a wholly different version was given. In the FIR, it has been disclosed that another pillion rider, namely Smt. Anima Debnath was also there, but she was not examined. The informant, namely Smt. Purnima Debnath, by filing the FIR, has disclosed as follows : “When they reached a place named Kathaltali by riding the said bike the time would be around 5.30 pm of the evening. At that time one auto truck came speedily and rashly from the opposite direction and hit the bike. Resultantly the biker Jawar Lal Nama Das (37), S/O Lt. Falguni Nama Das, Vill-Rangutia, Kalibazar, PS-Lefunga and pillion riders i.e. my younger sister and aunt sustained severe injury. They were sent to the G.B. Hospital for treatment. The bike rider died there and my aunt Sapna Debnath and my younger sister are undergoing treatment in the G.B. Hospital.” 10. On the aspect of involvement of the Auto-truck, the Tribunal has observed as under : “PW.2 Smt. Swapna Debnath deposed that on the date of accident she was proceeding with Jaharlal Nama Das (now deceased) boarding his motor bike as pillion rider and on the way when they reached near Kathaltali, the rider of the motor bike attending natural call keeping his bike on the extreme left side of the road, suddenly, one auto truck bearing No. TR-01-J-0637 coming from opposite direction rash and negligently with high speed dashed both of them and fled away. As a result, both of them sustained grievous injuries on their persons and they were brought to GB Hospital. At GB Hospital, Jaharlal Nama Das succumbed to his injuries. During cross-examination of the witnesses the opposite-party put some suggestive questions in the shape of denial. From the cross-examination of the witnesses no cogent materials come out to rebut the claimant-petitioner’s case. Now, let me scan the documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner. On perusal of the exhibited documents i.e. the certified copies of FIR, ejahar, Post Mortem Report etc. it is seen that the husband of the petitioner succumbed to his injuries following road traffic accident.” 11. Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the claimant-respondent cannot dispute that the police after due investigation filed the report vide FRT dated 30.03.2006 in connection with Airport P.S. Case No. 02/2006, specifically stating that “no sufficient evidence revealed against anybody in this case and no scope of getting further evidence in near future on the basis of Ejahar/FIR dated 3/1/06 against one unknown Auto Truck (Red Colour)”. 12. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent has conceded to that fact and submitted that the claimant-respondent has filed one protest petition and the police had been directed to re-investigate the matter. 13. But what has surfaced is very disturbing. PW.2 did not state anything whether she had disclosed the number of the said Auto-truck to the police or not. Even, there is no description of the offending vehicle in the FIR and the claimant-respondent also did not explain how subsequently the said description was gathered. The owner-respondent, even though at the outset raised objection about the involvement of the said Auto-truck, but it is true that he did not adduce any evidence as a measure of rebuttal. But the final question is, whether the claimant-respondent’s version in respect of involvement of the vehicle is believable or not. The version that has been projected in the written information lodged in the Airport police station and the version of PW.2 are diametrically opposite. It weighs that the collusion of the motor bike with the said Auto-truck is not true. That is the reason no one came forward to disclose the number of the vehicle whereas the owner of the Auto-truck has clearly stated that his vehicle was not involved. It weighs that the collusion of the motor bike with the said Auto-truck is not true. That is the reason no one came forward to disclose the number of the vehicle whereas the owner of the Auto-truck has clearly stated that his vehicle was not involved. He has also disclosed in the inquiry that the person who was driving the vehicle on the relevant date, had valid license and the same has been produced by the owner in the inquiry. The Driving Licence was in the name of one Rakesh Chandra Das. Unless the claimant establishes the involvement of the Auto-truck in the accident, no onus would shift to rebut such evidence and as such, having regard to the emerging fact, this court is of the view that the claim has been structured on distortion of fact by way of entangling the Auto-truck in the accident. Even Mr. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondent has fairly submitted before this court that after all such disclosures, he cannot defend the impugned judgment and award. 14. Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the Auto-truck, has reiterated that the said vehicle was never involved in the accident and the police investigation has proved the same observing that during investigation no material could be collected establishing the involvement of any vehicle in the said accident. 15. On appreciation of the records so produced before this court and the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court is of the view that the involvement of the Auto-truck cannot be believed by this court. As consequence of that, the finding as returned by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award, holding that the Auto-truck was involved in the accident, cannot be sustained. 16. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The clam petition stands dismissed. Whatever amount the appellant has deposited in the Registry shall be returned to them on proper identification. However, there shall be no order as to costs.