JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Since, all these appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence are being adjudicated together after rendering hearing to all concerned. 2. It is germane to narrate the brief facts of the accident, in question, which took place on 14.10.2005 at 6:00 PM while the offending vehicle Tata Sumo/Spacio, bearing No. UK-05-2504, was being driven in the border roads of District Pithoragarh. 3. This vehicle was, in fact, owned by one Sri Laxman Singh S/o Sri Vijay Singh, who purchased the same way back in the year 2003 under hypothecation with some financer. He transferred the possession of such vehicle on 18.06.2005 for the consideration of Rs.2,10,000/- and out of such amount, he received Rs.70,000/- in advance with the delivery of possession to the purchaser Mr. Bhagat Ram. 4. It can be mentioned that under Section 157 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, such transfer of ownership of vehicle is permissible even without taking due sanction from the Competent Authority. 5. Mr. Bhagat Ram thus, became an ostensible owner-in-possession of the concerned vehicle. On the fateful day, which occurred almost after four months of such transfer, the vehicle, while being plied on the tardy serpentine border roads of hilly District Pithoragarh, hit one scooter, which was parked on the road, thus, causing injuries to Sri Mahendra Singh and Sri Mahesh Kumar standing nearby. As a result, the offending vehicle-Tata Sumo, fell in a deep gorge and thus, was smashed. So, the injured Mahendra Singh, who could have been the best person to see the accident, lodged the FIR at around 3:00 PM against an unknown person and thus, the case was registered bearing Crime No. 478 of 2005 for the offences under Section 279, 337, 338, 427 IPC. 6. Investigation was handed over to Sub Inspector Mr. Khajan Singh, who submitted the Closure Report No. 29 on 25.03.2006, because as per his enquiry/investigation, Mr. Bhagat Ram himself was driving the vehicle, who lost his life in such accident. In addition thereto, one Mr. Kishan Singh was also boarded in the same vehicle and he also met with the same fate. 7. Since, there was none, against whom charge-sheet could have been submitted for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, so the Investigation Officer was constrained to submit the Closure Report. 8. However, prior to the submission of this closure report, Mr. Kishan Singh was also boarded in the same vehicle and he also met with the same fate. 7. Since, there was none, against whom charge-sheet could have been submitted for driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, so the Investigation Officer was constrained to submit the Closure Report. 8. However, prior to the submission of this closure report, Mr. Laxman Singh, father of deceased Mr. Bhagat Ram, moved to the Court and took Supurdagi of the damaged vehicle on 07.01.2006. After receiving such report from the Police Station, the Magistrate concerned issued notice to the informant Mr. Mahendra Singh, who moved an affidavit on 22.07.2006, expressing his no objection if such a report is accepted. So, the Magistrate had no option but to accept such report and the order was, accordingly, passed on the same day. 9. The controversy arose when the legal heirs of the deceased on the one hand and injured Sri Mahendra Singh and Sri Kishan Singh on the other, presented their respective claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation. 10. The claim petitions moved by the legal heirs of deceased, duo, were presented on 28.6.2016 whereas, the petitions of injured persons were presented some time later. It is obvious that legal heirs of the deceased presented their petition after almost three months of submission of the final report in the matter when they came to know about the specific finding of the Investigating Officer Mr. Khajan Singh to the effect that the vehicle was found to be driven by the deceased Bhagat Ram himself. Hence, they pleaded that such vehicle was being driven by one Mr. Sunil Kumar, who had a valid driving licence because they knew that the vehicle was duly insured for the accident but had the true facts come to the notice of the Tribunal as regards the factum of driving the vehicle by the deceased Bhagat Ram, they would get nothing because Mr. Bhagat Ram did not possess any valid/legal driving licence ever. When this controversy was much agitated before the Tribunal, then the Presiding Officer/District Judge passed an order on 26.09.2007, asking the S.H.O. of the concerned police station, to enquire the matter in detail and submit his report. In compliance, Mr. Ganga Singh, S.H.O., elaborately enquired the matter again and after a thorough probe, he submitted his report on 16.10.2007 before the tribunal, affirming the findings of the Investigating Officer Mr. In compliance, Mr. Ganga Singh, S.H.O., elaborately enquired the matter again and after a thorough probe, he submitted his report on 16.10.2007 before the tribunal, affirming the findings of the Investigating Officer Mr. Khajan Singh. 11. That apart, the insurer was vigilant enough to call both these officers viz. Mr. Khajan Singh as well as Mr. Ganga Singh in the witness box so that they could be examined on oath and all concerned were rendered sufficient opportunity to cross-examine them, but nothing could be culled out from their such examination in order to believe the story, as put forth by the legal heirs of deceased that Mr. Sunil Kumar was driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. 12. The argument on behalf of the respondents that Mr. Sunil himself has been examined in the Court as D.W.3 on 4.2.2008, who himself has admitted the factum of driving the offending vehicle at the relevant time, is unbelievable to this Court. In my opinion, he is totally a procured, hired and a false witness because for a moment, if his version is believed, then it is quite strange that he could not suffer even a single abrasion or contusion while the jeep fell in the deep ravines. His version, that anticipating the falling of jeep in a deep gorge, he jumped from the driver seat, is totally unbelievable, for the reason that the technical expert, who examined the jeep after the accident, has found that the door from the driver side, was completely closed. That apart, why he did not lodge the F.I.R. himself narrating the fateful accident, also casts a doubt on his integrity. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that at the relevant date and time, the offending vehicle was being driven by its owner Mr. Bhagat Ram, who did not possess any licence, much less a valid/legal one. In such eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Sardari and others vs. Sushil Kumar and others reported in 2008 (2) T.A.C. 369 (S.C.) has held that there is a visible distinction between the cases where the licence is fake and where the licence has expired, meaning thereby, that if the vehicle was being driven with a fake licence, then the case is different from the one where the vehicle was being driven by an expired licence. 13. 13. Here, in the matter in hand, the offending vehicle was being driven by a person, who neither had a fake licence nor an expired licence, but he did not have any licence. Besides, P.W.3 Mr. Mahesh Kumar, in this case, was himself an injured person and he has categorically stated that the vehicle was being driven by Mr. Bhagat Ram. Statement of PW3 has further been corroborated with the evidence of another injured Mr. Mahendra Singh. So, while the evidence of these eyewitnesses, who are injured too, being supported with the on oath statements of concerned S.H.O. as well as of Mr. Khajan Singh, the Investigating Officer, are more believable than any other procured eyewitness like Mr. Harak Singh Thiguna. Rather, it is a complete deceitful attempt on the part of deceased’s legal heirs that in order to grab the public money, they have produced these procured witnesses like Mr. Thiguna and Mr. Sunil Kumar. The Tribunal has thus, erred in believing the statements of such witnesses. 14. It is also pertinent to mention that in A.O. No. 403 of 2009, Km. Gangotri, after the death of Mr. Kishan Singh, claiming herself to be the sister of deceased, has filed the claim petition, but, in fact, she is a married lady. So, in that way, she cannot be said to be dependant on the deceased. 15. All told, I feel that these are such unfortunate cases wherein, the liability could have been fastened upon the deceased but he himself has lost his life in the selfsame accident leaving no substantial property. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgments passed by the Tribunal in all matters cannot be sustained in the eye of law and are thus, set aside. Appeals stand allowed. 17. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- to the injured Mr. Mahendra Singh, which was deposited by the Insurance Company at the time of admission of this appeal and out of such amount, 50% of the same has been disbursed while in another case, Tribunal awarded Rs.1,23,000/- to the injured Mr. Mahesh Kumar and 50% of such amount has also been disbursed. 18. Looking to the facts of the case, it is hereby directed that the money which has been released in favour of the claimants, shall not be recoverable. 19. Mahesh Kumar and 50% of such amount has also been disbursed. 18. Looking to the facts of the case, it is hereby directed that the money which has been released in favour of the claimants, shall not be recoverable. 19. However, the money, if lying either in the Tribunal or in the Registry, the same shall be returned to the Insurance Company along with up-to-date interest, it has earned during the course of its’ lying in the bank. 20. Statutory deposit, lying in the above appeals, shall forthwith be remitted to the Tribunal concerned, who, in turn, shall return the same to the Insurance Company in the same fashion. 21. Let a copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the Tribunal concerned for information and compliance.