ORDER Delay condoned. Leave granted. 2 In respect of an accident that occurred on 04.09.2003 when one Ashok Kumar who was driving a motorcycle died in collision with a jeep, proceedings were initiated (Miscellaneous Case No.41/2004) seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, Rajasthan. The claim petition asserted, inter alia: “(A) Brief Description of Accident: That on dated 04.09.2003 in evening at around 6 O’clock from Gangapur City hospital taking news of wife of elder brother of deceased, the deceased himself, father of deceased & mother of deceased were going to village Lahavad by sitting on Motorcycle No.R.J. 25/2M 3523. Motorcycle was being driven on his side very slowly by deceased Ashok, that on the way near Dhawaik ka Pura opposite Party No.1 Mohd. Akhtar brought Jeep No.R.J. 01/C 0214 driving with very fast speed, negligently on wrong side & hit the motorcycle of deceased & caused the accident. In aforesaid accident many serious injuries came on the body of deceased due to which during treatment in S.M.S. Hospital Jaipur on dated 15.09.2003 Ashok died & injuries came on the body of Madan Mohan father & Laxmi Devi mother of deceased. The aforesaid accident has been caused by Jeep driver opposite party No.1 by driving the Jeep very fast, negligently on wrong side, for which opposite Party No.1 is guilty & responsible.” 3. Written statement filed on behalf of the Driver and owners of the offending vehicle averred: “27(a) That the content of sub-clause (a) of para 27 of the application is wrong, not admitted. In accident, there was no fault of Jeep Driver Mohd. Akhtar. Accident occurred due to the fault of deceased motorcycle driver. Therefore, nonapplicants are not liable for the accident. Jeep Driver non-applicant No.1 was driving Jeep in slow speed.” 4. Thereafter, in the written statement filed by the Insurance Company, following plea was taken: “1. That the insured Vehicle NO.RJ.01/C-0214 had no link with the alleged accident. Under conspiracy, based on false facts, the applicant has mentioned insured Vehicle No.RJ.01/C-0214 in the claim application only in order to receive the claim amount. Hence whole claim petition against the answering Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed at initial stage. 2. That in paper statement dated 04.03.2003 given by claimant no.2 Shri Madan Mohan RJ.25C/1052 has been told to be accident causing vehicle. Hence whole claim petition against the answering Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed at initial stage. 2. That in paper statement dated 04.03.2003 given by claimant no.2 Shri Madan Mohan RJ.25C/1052 has been told to be accident causing vehicle. This is important document, by which it is prima facie proved that no accident has been caused by insured vehicle No.RJ.01/C-0214. Hence claim petition against answering Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. 3. That Vehicle No.RJ.25C/1052 has been mentioned at all the places in the charge sheet by the police as vehicle causing accident, but false facts have been presented to the police by hiding the true facts after a long time by the applicants with malafide intention. The police without sufficient & substantive basis considering Vehicle No.RJ.01/C-0214 to be accident causing vehicle has presented the charge sheet. Just from minute study of charge sheet submitted by police prima facie is itself proved. Applicants do not get any legal help from the charge sheet presented. Hence claim petition is liable to be dismissed.” 5. The claim petition was allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal vide order dated 11.06.2006 and following directions were passed: “Therefore, the application of the applicants/claimants Usha Devi widow of Ashok Kumar, aged 26 years, madan Mohan son of Ghasi Lal, age 55 years and Laxmi Devi wife of Madan Mohan, age 50 years, Caste Brahaman, resident of Lahawad, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli (Rajasthan) in favour of applicants, being admitted against the non-applicants No.1, 2, 3 and 4 jointly and severally, award of total sum of Rs.4,66,000/- (in words Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand) is passed, out of which reducing the amount of Rs.50,000/- (in words Rupees Fifty Thousand) paid under No Fault Liability, on the remaining amount of Rs.4,16,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixteen Thousand) annual interest @ 6% would be payable from 24.04.2004 till realization. For the remaining amount, the claim is rejected. Cheque of the said amount would be drawn in the name of this Tribunal. For the remaining amount, the claim is rejected. Cheque of the said amount would be drawn in the name of this Tribunal. Out of this amount, one FDR of Rs.1,50,000/- (in words Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousnad) for a period of 5 years, in the name of applicant No.1 Usha Devi widow of Ashok Kumar age 26 years, and one-one FDR of Rs.50-50 thousand each for a period of 5 years in the name of applicant No.2 & 3 Madan Mohan and Laxmi Devi, shall remain deposited in any Nationalized Bank. Applicant No.2 & 3 Madan Mohan and Laxmi Devi shall get Rs.30 thousand each in cash. The applicant No.1 Usha Devi widow of Ashok Kumar age 26 years shall get in cash the remaining amount of Rs.1,05,000/- (in words Rupees One Lakh Six thousand) and interest amount of above FDRs shall not be pre-matured without the permission of this Tribunal.” 6. The matter was carried in appeal by the Insurance Company denying its liability. Cross-objections were also filed on behalf of the claimants seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation. The matter was considered by the High Court and vide its order dated 03.07.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4075 of 2006, the High Court accepted the plea raised by the Insurance Company and observed as under: “Thus, in the present case, as per the initial version given in the FIR, the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-25-C-1052. Later, jeep bearing registration No.RJ-01-C-0214 was found to be involved in this case. However, there is no explanation or material on record to establish as to how the claimants came to know that the Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-01-C-0214 instead of RJ-25-C-1052 had caused the accident. … In these circumstances, the claimants were required to examine Madan Mohan as a witness before the Tribunal. The said witness could have explained as to why he had given an incorrect Jeep number, at the time of lodging FIR and how he came to know that number of the offending Jeep was a different than the one disclosed by him in the FIR. The owner as well as the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle would have got the opportunity to cross examine Madan Mohan. The owner as well as the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle would have got the opportunity to cross examine Madan Mohan. Madan Mohan is one of the claimants and could have easily appeared in the witness box to dispose with regard to the manner of accident. Hence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the claims.” 7. It is a matter of record that during the pendency of the appeal, 50% of the sum awarded by the Tribunal was made over to the claimants while the balance 50% is presently in deposit with the Registry of the Tribunal. 8. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 9. We see no reason to interfere in the matter. The assessment made by the High Court and the conclusions drawn, in our view, are absolutely correct. 10. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where 50% of the awarded sum has already been made over to the claimants, we do not deem it appropriate to direct refund of said sum. 11. Therefore, while affirming the view taken by the High Court, we direct that 50% of the sum which has been made over to the claimants shall not be recovered from them and the Insurance Company will be entitled only to the refund of balance 50% sum which stands deposited with the Registry of the Tribunal along with any interest accrued thereon. 12. The appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms.