JUDGMENT V Srishananda, J. - This appeal is preferred by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed by the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Dharwad in MVC No.608/2007 dated 10.02.2009. 2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:- In the claim petition, it is contended that on 27.08.2007, a complaint came to be lodged by the fatherin- law of one Sri. Basappa stating that himself and Basappa were waiting for bus at Tangod village bus stand circle in order to go to Bellatti market to sell Bamboo Handicraft articles. It is contended that at that juncture, one Tempo Trax bearing No.KA-15/M-684 came from Hole-Itagi side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against Basappa at about 11.00 a.m. and as a result, said Basappa fell down and sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Bellatti for treatment. It is further contended that despite best treatment, said Basappa succumbed to the injuries and thereafter, a complaint came to be lodged a day later. It is further contended that the deceased was earning Rs.8,500/- per month and was aged 35 years as on the date of the accident and hence, sought for suitable compensation. On issuance of notice, respondents 1 and 2 did not chose to appear before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 appeared before the Tribunal and filed written statement denying the petition averments. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal raised issues and after analyzing the entire evidence placed on record, awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and ordered that the adjudged compensation shall be paid by respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. S. C. Jainar, vehemently contended that the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has totally ignored the evidentiary value of Exs.R.1 to R.7, which are marked by consent. It is that judgment, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. S. C. Jainar, vehemently contended that the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment has totally ignored the evidentiary value of Exs.R.1 to R.7, which are marked by consent. It is his case that the Tribunal also ignored the fact that the oral evidence of P.W.2 and 3 are not believable in view of the fact that the very same witnesses who have turned hostile before the Criminal Court and they fully supported the case of the claimants in the proceedings before the Tribunal and as such, their evidence is doubtful. He submitted that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the delay of 29 hours in lodging the complaint, which clearly establishes that the offending vehicle is falsely implicated with the active collusion of the owner of the vehicle and the police authorities and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants, Sri. M.H. Patil, vehemently contended that the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, especially the oral and documentary evidence in the absence of oral evidence on behalf of the respondent, has rightly allowed the claim petition and ordered for payment of compensation by the owner and the insurance company jointly and severally and hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 5. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as under:- "Whether the appellants have made out a case for exonerating the liability on the insurance company?" 6. The answer to the above point is in the negative for the following:- REASONS 7. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the oral testimony of P.W.2 and 3, who are the alleged eyewitnesses to the accident. 8. In support of his case, he relied upon judgmentbetween Sri. Sunith Kumar V vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.and another, (2014) ILR(Kar) 6693 and also the judgment between Konda Anuradha and others v. Gopi Reddy Venkat Reddy and another, (2009) ACJ 708 and submits that the appeal needs to be allowed and the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 9. Sunith Kumar V vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.and another, (2014) ILR(Kar) 6693 and also the judgment between Konda Anuradha and others v. Gopi Reddy Venkat Reddy and another, (2009) ACJ 708 and submits that the appeal needs to be allowed and the insurance company be exonerated from its liability. 9. The main thrust of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.2, who is the father-in-law of the deceased and incidentally the complainant in criminal case and P.W.3, who is the independent eyewitness to the accident have turned hostile in Criminal case and therefore, the driver of the vehicle was acquitted by the Criminal Court. It is his case that surprisingly, these two witnesses, who turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in criminal case have fully supported the case of the claimant before the Tribunal, which clearly establishes that there is active collusion between the claimants as well as the owner of the vehicle. 10. He also drew the attention of this Court to the complaint filed by P.W.2 before the police wherein it is clearly mentioned that unknown driver is responsible for the accident, which aspect of the matter is totally ignored by the Tribunal. 11. On perusal of the complaint, which is marked at Ex.P.1, it is crystal clear that there is no mention of the vehicle number or the name of the driver. The Tribunal has also observed that there is a shadow of doubt in oral evidence of P.W.2 and 3, in para No.9 of the impugned judgment. However, the Tribunal also came to the conclusion that mere non-mentioning of vehicle number and the name of the driver itself would not result in judging the case of the claimant as a false one. The Tribunal also applied the principles of res ipsa loquitur and thus held that the accident in question is not in dispute. 12. The Tribunal relied on the decision reported in 1984 M.P. 173 to hold that the proof of the testimony of witness recorded before the Tribunal should not be discarded based on the testimony of a witness recorded before the Criminal Court. So also, the Tribunal applied the principles enunciated in AIR 1970 Punjab and Hariyana 137 wherein also the Hon'ble Punjab High Court has determined that innocence of the driver is not binding on claims tribunal. So also, the Tribunal applied the principles enunciated in AIR 1970 Punjab and Hariyana 137 wherein also the Hon'ble Punjab High Court has determined that innocence of the driver is not binding on claims tribunal. Contrary to the said decision the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on two judgments between Konda Anuradha and others v. Gopi Reddy Venkat Reddy and another, (2009) ACJ 708 which reads as under: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, section 166- Claim application - Involvement of vehicle - Claim that tractor-trailer hit a scoter resulting in the death of scooterist - Brother of the deceased lodged complaint with police stating that an unknown motor vehicle caused the accident - After investigation police found that offending vehicle is undetectable, it was a hit and run case and matter was closed - After about 1 year and 10 months of the accident police recorded statement of a person who claimed to be an eyewitness to the accident involving tractor-trainer - Police filed charge-sheet against its driver - Claimants filed claim and examined the eyewitness - Owner of tractor-trailer was ex parte and its insurance company disputed the accident involving the vehicle - Tribunal described the evidence of alleged eyewitness as artificial and unbelievable; suspected his presence at the accident site as his presence remained unexplained and illusive and held that eyewitness has been planted - Neither the complainant who lodged the first complaint nor any police official who could detect the involvement of tractor-trailer was examined - Whether the Tribunal was justified inj dismissing the claim application - Held : yes, claimants failed to establish involvement of tractor-trailer. 13. between Sri.Sunith Kumar V. vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. 13. between Sri.Sunith Kumar V. vs. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd, (2014) ILR(Kar) 6693 which reads as under: "MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 166 - Accident claim - Judgment and award - Dismissal of Claim Petition - Absence of evidence regarding time and place of the occurrence of the accident - Delay in filing the complaint - Discrepancies found in the exhibits produced in the evidence of claimant - Non-explanation by the claimant with regard to discrepancies found in the exhibits - Dispute regarding occurrence of accident by the Insurance Company - Re-appreciation of evidence on record - HELD, the Tribunal is justified in dismissing the Claim Petition - Evidence produced by the appellant is not sufficient to hold that the appellant had suffered injuries in a road accident." 14. On close perusal of the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company, it is crystal clear that in Konda Anuradha's case, there is a delay of more than three months in seizing of the vehicle in pursuance of a criminal complaint and therefore, there was a serious doubt as to the involvement of the vehicle in question but in the present case, the delay in lodging of complaint was 29 hours and soon after the complaint came to be lodged, the offending vehicle came to be seized by the police on the next day. 15. Though there is some force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant as to non-mentioning of the vehicle number and the name of the driver in Ex.P.1/complaint, the same is understandable in view of the fact that when ghastly incident has occurred, there was hardly any scope for P.W.2 to note down the vehicle number of observe who was the driver. 16. The police authorities, after thorough investigation, based on Ex.P.1 have seized the vehicle in question and also filed the charge sheet against the driver of the vehicle. 17. The same is not challenged by insurance company. It is no doubt true that P.W.2, who is the father-in-law of the deceased had turned hostile to the case of the prosecution before the Criminal Court and likewise P.W.3 who is independent eyewitness also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in criminal case. But on record, these two witnesses have supported the case of the claimant before the Tribunal. But on record, these two witnesses have supported the case of the claimant before the Tribunal. In view of the decisions referred to by the Tribunal as referred to supra, the finding recorded in the criminal case in acquitting the driver of the offending vehicle ipso facto does not make out a case for insurance company to deny the liability before claims Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle involved in the accident is the vehicle belonging to the second respondent, which was duly insured with the insurance company and therefore, claimants were successful in establishing the nexus between the accident and offending the vehicle. 18. On record, this Court does not find serious infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is bereft of merits and the impugned judgment and award does not call for interference. Accordingly, the above point is answered in the negative and proceed to pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company is statutory deposit and the same shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. As could be seen from the order sheet of this Court, there is an endorsement dated 08.07.2011 that the balance amount is deposited by the insurance company before the Executing Court.