JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant whereas Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Mr. S. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. None appears for the respondent No. 1 despite due notice from this Court. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 06.05.2013 delivered in T.S. (MAC). No. 120 of 2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur. 3. This appeal is by the owner of TR-01-B-1596 (Truck), who has been directed to pay a part of the award i.e. Rs.3,40,000/- with interest @ 6% within a period of 2 (two) months, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest @ 9%, till the payment is made. 4. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has emphatically submitted that at the relevant time of accident i.e. on 22.06.2010 the vehicle of the appellant being TR-01-B-1596 (Truck) was in the garage for revamping the engine. In this regard, a certificate issued by one Parimal Majumder, OPW-1, has been introduced in the evidence. The said certificate dated 05.07.2010 (Exhibit-A) bears a statement that the vehicle was in the garage under name and style of Kakali Welding House at Chittaranjan Road, Agartala from 30.03.2010 to 02.07.2010. 5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that without giving due recognition on the said document, the tribunal has caused serious failure of justice inasmuch as OPW-2, Sri Subhash Pal has corroborated the testimony of OPW-1. 6. From the final police report (part of Exhibit-2 series) it clearly transpires that the police investigated the accident and found the involvement of the vehicle of the appellant. The said vehicle was put to examination by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, but the said inspection was carried out after lapse of a substantial time. From the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector it clearly appears that the vehicle was in a pliable status. However, it has been also observed that there was no mark of any accident in the vehicle. 7. From the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector it clearly appears that the vehicle was in a pliable status. However, it has been also observed that there was no mark of any accident in the vehicle. 7. Such comment however, cannot give extra-edge to the contention of the appellant, inasmuch as the vehicle owned by the appellant is a truck whereas the other vehicle which is involved in the accident is a motor bike and as such, there may not be any mark of accident on the body of the truck vehicle. 8. This Court is urged to prima facie decide whether the story as asserted by the claimant is believable or the story as launched by the appellant, the owner of the said truck, is believable. It is not a matter of comparison but it is a matter of probability. This Court after keen appreciation of the evidentiary materials as placed before the tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any reason to disbelieve the investigation report, which was carried out by a statutory investigation agency. 9. Moreover, the final report drawn after termination of the investigation has been made part of the evidence, in Exhibit-2 series. Therefore, the plea as raised by the appellant that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident and it was in the garage during the relevant cannot be believed. 10. The certificate issued by OPW-1 is so abrupt that such certificate cannot be relied on. Moreover, OPW-1 has failed to produce a piece of paper to show that he was carrying on the business of garage under a valid trade license or under a valid license under Factories Act or that the workers are engaged his garage or he had the necessary competence to extend the said type of service. 11. These are not usually required, but in the circumstances of the case, the Court has to invest serious attention on those aspects so that no fraud is exercised on the Court. This Court does not find that the materials introduced by OPW-1 and OPW-2 are reliable in order to brush aside the said final police report [in the Exhibit-2 series]. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. It is therefore dismissed. 12. This Court does not find that the materials introduced by OPW-1 and OPW-2 are reliable in order to brush aside the said final police report [in the Exhibit-2 series]. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal. It is therefore dismissed. 12. Before parting with the records, this Court is persuaded to interfere with the penal rate of interest at 9% per annum as awarded for failure of the payment within 2(two) months from the date of the judgment and award inasmuch as Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not authorize the tribunal to award penal rate of interest with retrospective effect. Accordingly, the appellant need not be required to pay this part of the award but he has to pay interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the payment is made. There shall be no order as to costs.