JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2007 in OP No.489 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Medak, (for short ‘the Tribunal), the appellant – Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal granted an amount of R5,70,000/- towards compensation to respondents 3 to 5 – claimants with proportionate costs and interest @7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/- by the claimants. The Tribunal fixed the liability against the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant – Insurance Company preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the claimants. 4. The case of the claimants is that they filed OP No.489 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased Ramakrishana in a road accident occurred on 18.07.2004. They contend that on 18.07.2004 at 12.30 p.m., when the deceased was riding Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No. AP 23 F 5882 and reached near Hanuman Temple in the outskirts of Kandi village at Cheriyal cross roads, Swaraj Mazda DCM Van bearing No.AP 238 U 372 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle of the deceased from its rear side. Due to the said accident, the deceased fell down sustained severe injuries. The claimants further contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years and was working as a Police Constable, earning monthly salary of Rs.9,000/-. Claiming that they lost their bread winner, the claimants filed the claim petition for Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, the owner and driver of the vehicle – respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The appellant – Insurance Company has filed counter opposing the claim of the claimants and disputing the liability itself. The Insurance company inter alia contended that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the DCM Van and the deceased himself driven his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, but since the deceased was a police constable, a false case was foisted against the driver of the Van. 6. The Insurance company inter alia contended that there is no fault on the part of the driver of the DCM Van and the deceased himself driven his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, but since the deceased was a police constable, a false case was foisted against the driver of the Van. 6. On considering the entire evidence on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,70,000/- towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to the claimants fixing the liability on the owner, driver and insurer of the DCM Van. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company, the vehicle i.e. Swaraj Mazda DCM Van bearing registration No.AP 28 U 372, insured with the appellant is not involved in the accident. He would further contend that the appellant entered appearance before the Tribunal and filed its counter in the OP by taking the specific plea that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident at all and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. He would further contend that PW.2, another Constable, lodged complaint with the police Sanga Reddy (Rural) on 18.07.2004 and on the said complaint, police registered FIR vide crime No.112 off 2004 for the offence under Section 304 IPC. 8. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the complainant did not mention the number of the crime vehicle including the number of the Swaraj Mazda DCM Van. He would further contend that after about 9 months of the accident, the owner of the above said DCM Van came to the police station on 30.03.2005 and produced the accused therein i.e. Md.Saleem said to be the driver of the crime vehicle and on the next day itself, Ex.A2 charge sheet was filed. He would further contend that in Ex.A2, charge sheet, the police have mentioned that on interrogation, the accused admitted the offence. According to the learned counsel, the claimants in collusion with the police and the owner of the DCM Van and said Md. Saleem, filed the present claim petition with malafide intention to claim compensation against the Insurance Company. 9. He would further contend that in Ex.A2, charge sheet, the police have mentioned that on interrogation, the accused admitted the offence. According to the learned counsel, the claimants in collusion with the police and the owner of the DCM Van and said Md. Saleem, filed the present claim petition with malafide intention to claim compensation against the Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the deposition of PW2, who is the complainant of the FIR and a Constable, would contend that PW.2 did not depose about involvement of the Swaraj Mazda DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 U 372 and that PW.2 deposed as follows: “I found a Herohonda motor cycle was lying on the road and a person was lying with injuries and I found that some vehicle had caused the accident and fled away. Then I went to the said person by stopping my motor cycle and on my verification I found the person as a constable who worked with me. Immediately I shifted the deceased in an auto to Sangareddy Govt. Hospital. I telephoned to the S.I. of Police, Sangareddy Rural Police station. I also lodged complaint in the Sangareddy Rural Police station. While undergoing treatment the deceased succumbed to the injuries. Police examined me and recorded my statement.” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that during cross examination also, PW.2 has categorically admitted that the above said vehicle is not involved in the accident and that he do not know whether the crime vehicle was seized by the police and also the inspection of the crime vehicle by the MVI. By referring the same, he would contend that the Tribunal, without appreciating the above said documents and evidence, has erroneously awarded the compensation to the claimants by fixing liability on the appellant Insurance company. 11. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision in United India Insurance Co., Ltd. v. G. Mallaiah, 2010 (6) ALD 13 wherein this Court while dealing with the similar issue after analyzing the entire evidence including the findings of the Tribunal therein, held that the Vehicle was not involved in the accident and the claimants therein in collusion with the police and the owner and driver of the vehicle planted the said vehicle for claiming compensation from the Insurance Company. In the said judgment, this Court also ordered for disciplinary action against the Sub- Inspector, who filed charge sheet in the criminal case therein. Learned counsel also relied upon a judgment of the High Court of Karnataka in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G.N.Gopalagowda, 2006 ACJ 2771 wherein in similar circumstances, the Karnataka High Court held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal, on considering the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Swaraj Mazda Vehicle bearing registration No.AP 28 U 372 and rightly fixed the liability on the appellant – Insurance company. He would further submit that the procedure in the claim petitions filed under the Motor Vehicles Act is a summary procedure. The Tribunals are not supposed to see that the involvement of the crime vehicle would be proved beyond reasonable doubt like in a criminal case and the Tribunal has to give findings only on preponderance of probability and not strict provisions of the Evidence Act and Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the appellant – Insurance Company did not plead about the non-involvement of the above said vehicle. He has also relied upon the principle held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd., 2018 (5) SCC 656 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the accused is acquitted in the criminal case, that is not fatal to the case of the claimants to claim compensation and the Tribunals cannot take the same as consideration while awarding compensation. It is also held in the said judgment that the Tribunals and the Courts have to decide the claims on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and certainly not by standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. 13. By referring the said judgment, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving of the Sawaraj Mazda DCM Van and awarded compensation by fixing the liability on the appellant – Insurance company also. 14. 13. By referring the said judgment, learned counsel for the claimants would contend that the Tribunal on consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, gave a finding that the accident was occurred due rash and negligent driving of the Sawaraj Mazda DCM Van and awarded compensation by fixing the liability on the appellant – Insurance company also. 14. A perusal of the above referred judgment shows that the accident in the said case was occurred on 10.02.1990, PWs.2 and 4 therein had taken the appellant therein to the hospital after the accident. They have deposed before the Tribunal that after the accident, the jeep which caused the accident stopped ahead and they noted the jeep number in the backlight and further they heard the driver’s name being called out by the passengers in the jeep. The Tribunal therein, however, found that their version of having noted the jeep number and heard the driver’s name seemed to be unnatural. The Tribunal also discarded the version of the appellant (PW1) about the details of the vehicle as being not reliable. The Tribunal then noted the evidence of the defence witnesses, that the jeep in question was nowhere near the area of the accident. The Tribunal, however, opined that the accident had been caused by the jeep in question, based on the investigation report filed by the police and has awarded compensation fixing the liability on the Insurance company, which was reversed by the High Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court by considering the said evidence recorded by the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimants therein are entitled for compensation and the Insurance Company being the insurer of the said vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. 15. Whereas, in the present case, PW.2, who lodged Ex.A1 complaint, did not mention about the registration number of the vehicle in the complaint and anything about involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident. PW.2 also in his evidence before the Tribunal did not depose about the involvement of the said vehicle in the accident. 16. Admittedly, PW.2 is a Constable and the deceased was also a Constable. Even then, PW.2 did not depose in his evidence before the Tribunal in the OP that the above said Swaraj Mazda DCM Van was involved in the accident. 16. Admittedly, PW.2 is a Constable and the deceased was also a Constable. Even then, PW.2 did not depose in his evidence before the Tribunal in the OP that the above said Swaraj Mazda DCM Van was involved in the accident. It is not in dispute that the police filed Ex.A2 charge sheet wherein it is specifically mentioned that while the investigation was in progress on 30.03.2005 at about 11.30 a.m., the owner of the said DCM Van produced the driver of the vehicle Md. Saleem and the police have recorded the statement of the owner. In Ex.A2 charge sheet, it is also mentioned that on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt. 17. It is relevant to note that on 30.03.2005, the owner of the vehicle himself voluntarily came to the police station, surrendered his driver. Even then, in Ex.A2 police have stated that on interrogation, the accused admitted his guilt. When the accused himself surrendered voluntarily along with his vehicle, the question of interrogation by the police does not arise. The same is far from truth and unbelievable. Ex.A2 charge sheet is not trustworthy. The police filed Ex.A2 charge sheet on the very next day i.e., on 31.03.2005. Therefore, the facts in Mangla Ram’s case (supra) are altogether different to the facts of the present case. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, the principle held by the Apex Court in the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 18. Coming to the present case, the Tribunal without considering the above said facts, evidence and documents, gave a finding that the claimants are entitled for compensation and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. It further held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Swaraj Mazda DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 U 372. The said findings of the Tribunal are erroneous and contrary to the record. 19. This Court is conscious that case the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficiary legislation and the benefit should be given to the persons who are beneficiaries under the provisions of the Act. But, at the same time, the pubic money/tax payers’ money cannot be misused in frivolous claims filed by the claimants. 19. This Court is conscious that case the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficiary legislation and the benefit should be given to the persons who are beneficiaries under the provisions of the Act. But, at the same time, the pubic money/tax payers’ money cannot be misused in frivolous claims filed by the claimants. In the present also admittedly, the claimants failed to prove that the above said Swaraj Mazda DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 U 372 was involved in the accident and the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. 20. The Tribunal erred in holding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Swaraj Mazda DCM Van bearing No.AP 28 U 372 and the claimants are entitled for compensation and the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside in so far as the appellant- Insurance Company is concerned. 21. In the result, the Appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2007 in OP No.489 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – Principal District Judge, Medak, is set aside insofar as the appellant – Insurance Company is concerned. However, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Applications, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.