JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2017 passed in MVC No.338/2015 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi. 2. It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that on 11.04.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Nagaraj along with his cousin Babu were proceeding towards Aloor village, Tq. Aland to attend the death anniversary of Grandmother of the deceased Nagaraj, when they were proceeding, the deceased Nagaraj was riding motorcycle bearing No.KA32/Y6158 and Babu was pillion rider. When they were near Bhimalli Cross, one Swaraj Tractor and Trolley bearing Reg.No.KA32/T519/T520 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle due to which the deceased and pillion rider fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased Nagaraj was admitted in Basaveshwar Hospital and as per the advise of the doctor he was shifted to Higher center and admitted in Gangamai Hospital, Solapur, where he was treated for 12 days. However, he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. They have spent huge amount for treatment. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing Goldsmith business and earning Rs.2,50,000/per annum and also the President of Saispoorthy Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Sangha, Kalaburagi. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the Tractor and Trolley. 3. In pursuance of the notice, respondent No.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed written statement denying the age and income of the deceased. He has denied that there was any rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor and Trolley. The accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Further he contended that the vehicle which is involved in the accident is insured with respondent No.2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, he has also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. He has denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trolley. Hence, respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. 4. Respondent No.2 filed written statement, he has also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. He has denied that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor and Trolley. He has further contended that the petitioner in collusion with respondent No.1 have filed a false case against respondent No.2 insurance company by falsely involving the Tractor and Trolley with a malafide intention to obtain a wrongful compensation. The deceased himself was negligent in riding the motorcycle. He was also not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the petition be dismissed against him. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed issues. The claimant No.1 and two witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and they have got marked 181 documents. Respondent No.2 examined his official witness as RW1 and produced one document at Ex.R1. The learned member of the tribunal after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.12,81,000/with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its final realization against respondent Nos.1 and 2. 6. The insurer being dissatisfied with the judgment and award has filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellantinsurer vehemently submitted that the alleged accident occurred on 11.04.2013 and requisition was made to the Superintendent of Police to register the case against vehicle of respondent No.1 on 18.09.2014. Further, the police have filed ‘C’ report in the said case on 24.04.2014 and even the learned JMFC has rejected the protest petition filed by the complainant. Therefore, it is a hit and run case and that the vehicle of the respondent No.1 has been falsely implicated by the claimants in collusion with respondent No.1 in order to claim compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW3, the alleged eye witness cannot be believed and therefore the liability saddled against the insurer is liable to be set aside. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentclaimants submitted that PW2 is the pillion rider who also sustained injuries in the said accident and that PW3 is an eye witness who had observed registration number of the Tractor and Trolley and disclosed to the same to the claimants after one year of the accident when he visited the goldsmith shop of the claimants. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the tribunal is sustainable in law. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. A short point which arise for consideration before this Court is “whether the appellant insurer has made out grounds to set aside the impugned judgment and award fastening liability against him”? 10. It is stated by the claimants that the accident in question occurred on 11.04.2013 and the vehicle number was not furnished in the complaint lodged by PW2. It is only stated that a tractor came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motor cycle due to which the deceased and PW2 sustained injuries and the deceased died due to the said injuries. Even the make of the tractor and trolley is not mentioned in Ex.P168, the complaint which is the statement of PW2 Babu. Admittedly, the police have filed ‘C’ report in the said case as per Ex.P172 stating that vehicle was not traced. 11. Ex.P173 is the representation given to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi on 18.09.2014 by Vijaykumar namely claimant No.5 stating that the police have filed ‘C’ report in spite of the information that Tractor and Trolley involved in the accident is given as per the information given by PW3 Ismail. It is also further seen that the learned jurisdictional JMFC accepted the ‘C’ report filed by police as per Ex.P176 and rejected the protest petition filed by claimant No.5. 12. The tribunal has accepted the evidence of PW2 and PW3 in order to record finding as to the involvement of the tractor and trolley bearing registration No. KA32/T519/T520. Admittedly, the registration number of the vehicle was not given in the complaint filed by PW2. This is only a subsequent development. According to the claimant PW3 visited the shop of the claimants after one year of the accident and noticed the photograph of the deceased in the shop and at that time he disclosed the registration number of the tractor and trolley on the basis of which claimant No.5 made representation to the Superintendent of Police. Therefore, till PW3 informed registration number of the vehicle it was not known to the claimants or PW2 who is the eye witness to the accident and he also sustained injuries in the said accident. 13. Therefore, till PW3 informed registration number of the vehicle it was not known to the claimants or PW2 who is the eye witness to the accident and he also sustained injuries in the said accident. 13. PW2 Babu is examined before the Court as eye witness and injured, he has deposed that the alleged accident took place at 9.00 p.m. and that one Swaraj tractor and trolley came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle. Admittedly, he has not stated the name of the company Swaraj Tractor in his complaint. In his cross examination PW2 has admitted that the deceased is his cousin brother and at the time of accident he was pillion rider on the motorcycle. He himself has filed the complaint as per Ex.P170. He has admitted that his statement was recorded by the police as stated by him. He admits that in his complaint he has stated that some tractor caused the accident. He has also further stated in clear terms that the accident occurred at 9.00 p.m. and as there was dark, he could not observe the registration number of the tractor and the driver. When this is the evidence of PW2, the evidence of PW3 that he observed the registration number of the tractor and trolley, even in the said dark night has to be considered. 14. PW3 Ismail has stated that on 11.04.2013, he was going from Aland to Kalaburagi and when he reached near Bhimalli Cross, he noticed that accident had occurred between the tractor and two wheeler. Therefore, by the time he reached the spot, the accident had already occurred. He has further stated that the deceased and one Babu had fallen on the road and deceased had sustained grievous injuries. He has further stated that he has seen the tractor which bears number KA32/T519/T520, deceased was put in 108 Ambulance by himself and thereafter he went to Kalaburagi. He has further stated that after one year he went to the shop of claimant No.5 for purchasing golden ornaments and at that time he saw the photograph of the deceased and informed the tractor number to claimant No.5 and he also informed the police. He has further stated that after one year he went to the shop of claimant No.5 for purchasing golden ornaments and at that time he saw the photograph of the deceased and informed the tractor number to claimant No.5 and he also informed the police. In his cross examination, he has stated that the accident occurred at about 8.00 p.m. as against the evidence of PW2 that the accident occurred at 9.00 p.m. PW2 being the pillion rider at the time of the accident is most reliable than PW3 regarding time of the accident. Further PW3 has admitted in clear terms that he has not seen the accident. He does not know to read and write Kannada and English. The registration number and letters of tractor and trolley were in English. He had noted down the said numbers as told by the others. Therefore, PW3 himself is not the person who observed the registration number of the tractor and trolley. At the time of giving evidence, he had not brought the chit in which the tractor and trolley number were written. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 as an eye witness to the accident and that he observed the registration number of the tractor and trolley and after one year, he disclosed the same before claimant No.5 in his shop cannot be accepted at all. It appears PW3 is a planted witness only in order to involve the vehicles of respondent No.1 in the accident in order to claim compensation. It is also clear from the written statement filed by respondent No.1 that he is colluding with the petitioners. It is clear from paragraph 8 of his written statement which reads as follows. “That the vehicle which is involved in the case is insured with respondent2 and policy was inforce on the date of accident and in case the Hon’ble Court intend to award the compensation can do so holding liable the respondent No.2 for the same.” 15. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle neither stepped into the witness box nor has cross examined PW2 and PW3 and RW1 examined by the insurer. On the other hand, the respondent No.1 the owner of the vehicle neither stepped into the witness box nor has cross examined PW2 and PW3 and RW1 examined by the insurer. The learned member of the tribunal has observed in para 12 of the judgment that the jurisdictional JMFC has not given opportunity to the claimants to produce evidence on the protest petition and that the Superintendent of Police and Circle Inspector have not taken any steps on the basis of requisition given by claimant No.5. The learned tribunal has further observed that the Court can direct further investigation and I.O. can proceed with further investigation even after filing ‘C’ report and therefore, the learned JMFC was not correct in accepting ‘C’ report. The learned member of the tribunal is not competent to observe all these things since he was not sitting in appeal or revision against the order accepting ‘C’ report and rejecting the protest petition. The learned member of the tribunal ought to have considered the evidence produced before him in order to prove the alleged accident and involvement of the offending vehicle belonging to respondent No.1. However, while considering the evidence of PW2 and PW3 without on proper perspective, he jumped to the conclusion that on the basis of the evidence of PW3 the involvement of the vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 is proved. The evidence of PW3 that after one year, he informed the vehicle number to the claimants when he visited the shop and that he had noted down the vehicle number in a chit which was not produced before the Court cannot be believed. PW2 has stated in clear terms at the time of accident, it was 9.00 p.m. and it was dark and therefore he could not observe the vehicle number. In that event how PW3 can observe the vehicle number in the dark night is not at all explained by him. Even PW3 has stated that by the time he came to the spot of the accident, the deceased and PW2 had fallen on the ground and the accident already taken place, he has not observed actual accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is not at all reliable and it does not inspire confidence. Even PW3 has stated that by the time he came to the spot of the accident, the deceased and PW2 had fallen on the ground and the accident already taken place, he has not observed actual accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW3 is not at all reliable and it does not inspire confidence. Under these circumstances, I hold that the tribunal has come to a erroneous conclusion that the claimants have proved the involvement of tractor and trolley belonging to respondent No.l and the said vehicle caused the accident. The evidence of PW3 is produced only to putforth a make believe story. PW3 has even admitted that he does not know to read and write Kannada and English and on the say of somebody he noted down the tractor and trolley number and the said chit was not produced before the Court. Under these circumstances, the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the claimants in MFA No.12543/2007 decided on 03.06.2014 by this Court will not help claimants in any manner. Accordingly, I hold that the appellantinsurer has made out that the claimants have miserably failed to prove that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of Swaraj Tractor and Trolley bearing Registration No.KA32/T519/T520. Therefore, the insurer of the said vehicle is not liable to indemnify the liability of the owner and hence, the impugned judgment and award fastening liability on the insurer is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass the following… ORDER Appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 16.01.2017 passed in MVC No.338/2015 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi is set aside to the extent of fastening liability on the appellant-insurer Divisional Manager, Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd., The insurer is exonerated from his liability. The amount of compensation deposited by the insurer-appellant shall be refunded to him.