JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 26.03.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, whereby, claim petition filed by respondents No.1 and 2 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 seeking compensation on account of death of their five year old daughter in a motor accident, was liable to be dismissed as the claimants had failed to prove their case. FIR was got registered by respondent No.1, wherein, he has alleged that he had witnessed the occurrence and had stated that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of Bablu. However, in the claim petition, PW-2 Durgesh Kumar has been examined as an eye witness of the occurrence, whereas, respondent No.1 has stated that his daughter had been brought to him in an injured condition by his brother Jagdish and he had told him that she had been hit by a Motorcycle. So far as Duresh Kumar is concerned, in the criminal case, he had alleged that the motorcycle which was not bearing any number, was being driven by Bablu. In the criminal case, statement of Jagdish was recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It was alleged by the said witness that he had witnessed the accident caused by Bablu while driving the unnumbered motorcycle. However, the said person has not been examined before the Tribunal as a witness. 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving the offending vehicle and the claimants had been successful in proving the said fact. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 on the other hand, has opposed the appeal. 5. Exhibit-1 is the FIR registered with regard to the accident in question. A Perusal of the same, reveals that it was registered at the instance of Ramesh Chand. In the said FIR, it has been alleged by the informant that on 19.06.2005 at about 7.00 P.M., his daughter aged five years was playing in front of the house. In the meantime, unnumbered motorcycle driven by Bablu came and struck against his daughter. As a result, his daughter suffered injuries. In the said FIR, it has been alleged by the informant that on 19.06.2005 at about 7.00 P.M., his daughter aged five years was playing in front of the house. In the meantime, unnumbered motorcycle driven by Bablu came and struck against his daughter. As a result, his daughter suffered injuries. While he was taking his daughter to the hospital for treatment, she died. 6. Thus, in the FIR, respondent No.1 has portrayed himself as an eye witness to the accident. While appearing before the Tribunal as PW-1 Ramesh Chand deposed that when he had returned home at about 7.00 P.M., his brother Jagdish had brought his daughter on his shoulder and he was told that a motorcycle had struck against her. He took his daughter to the hospital for treatment, where she was declared dead. The said witness, thus, cannot be said to be an eye witness to the accident. 7. PW-2 Durgesh Kumar deposed that on 19.06.2005 at about 7.00/7.30 P.M., he was present in front of his shop. In the meantime, a motorcycle without any number came and struck against the daughter of Ramesh Chand. The motorcycle belonged to Peeru Lal. He had told Ramesh Chand that Bablu was driving the motorcycle as he felt that it was Bablu from behind. Later he came to know that the motorcycle was being driven by Peeru Lal. The said witness in his cross-examination deposed that it was correct, he had not witnessed the accident from the front. The said witness has failed to specify as to how and on what basis at a later stage, he came to know that the motorcycle was being driven by Peeru Lal. 8. From the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is evident that the witnesses had stated that the accident had been caused by Bablu while driving unnumbered motorcycle. From Exhibit-2, it is evident that challan was sought to be presented against Peeru Lal on the basis of his reply on a notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 has also opposed the appeal filed by the Insurance company. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving the offending vehicle. Respondent No.3 has also opposed the appeal filed by the Insurance company. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 has shown ignorance with regard to the decision of the criminal case registered against respondent No.3. It appears that at a later stage, the stand was changed by the claimants by involving respondent No.1 in collusion with respondent No.3. 10. Accordingly, issue No.1 framed by the Tribunal to the effect as to whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving the offending motorcycle is decided against the claimants. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Impugned award dated 26.03.2007 is set aside. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed. Amount deposited by the Insurance Company with the Tribunal in pursuance to the award in question be released to the Insurance Company/appellant.