JUDGMENT R.G. Avachat, J. - This is Insurance Company's appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 20/7/2020, passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), Newasa, District Ahmednagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition (Petition) No. 34/2018. The appellant insurance Company and the owners of the motorbike involved in the accident have been directed to pay the claimants a sum of Rs. 13,64,000/- as compensation on account of death in vehicular accident. 2. Facts, in brief, leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows: Deceased Balaji was serving as a Waiter in “Hotel Archana”, belonging to respondent No. 6 herein (R/6). After closure of the hotel late in the evening on 23/8/2017 (intervening night of 23rd and 24th August 2017), both the deceased and R/6 were on their way home on motorbike, No. MH-17/BR-7090. R/6 was riding the motorbike. The deceased was riding pillion. The motorbike slipped all of a sudden. Both the deceased and R/6 fell off the motorbike. An unknown vehicle coming from behind ran over the deceased. The deceased was rushed to a hospital at Newasa. He, however, breathed his last. 3. Shri Avadhut, brother of the deceased was informed of the incidence. He, therefore, rushed to the hospital. Avadhut then lodged the report of the accident (Exh. 27) with Newasa Police Station. It was reported therein that, it was Yamaha motorbike bearing No. MH-17/BP-9747. Avadhut gave a supplementary statement next day, stating therein that it was a motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 and not No. MH-17/BP-9747. On due investigation, the R/6 came to be proceeded against for being responsible to the accident and the resultant death of Balaji. The legal representatives of the deceased - parents, widow and two minor children filed the petition for compensation. The Tribunal, on appreciating the evidence in the petition, allowed the petition, granting compensation as stated above. 4. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that, the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 has been falsely implicated in the accident in question. In the F.I.R., an altogether different vehicle was named. Almost 78 days after registration of the F.I.R. the informant and the relations of the deceased changed their version to implicate the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090. Learned counsel took me through the evidence in the case and relied on some authorities to ultimately urge for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 5. Almost 78 days after registration of the F.I.R. the informant and the relations of the deceased changed their version to implicate the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090. Learned counsel took me through the evidence in the case and relied on some authorities to ultimately urge for setting aside the impugned judgment and award. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents - claimants would, on the other hand, submit that, the informant on the very next day of registration of the F.I.R., gave a supplementary statement, correcting the motorbike number. He took me through the evidence of the investigating officer, panch to the scene of accident panchanama to submit that these witnesses claimed to have seen the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 at the accident spot. The informant was not in a mental frame. His real brother had passed away. Based on the information he had received, he lodged the report of the accident. After having realised the involvement of the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090, he immediately gave a supplementary statement. According to learned counsel, it is a death claim. Due to untimely death of Balaji, the claimants have suffered incalculable loss. The deceased was the sole bread winner of the family. Due to his untimately death, it is hard for them to make both the ends meet. Learned counsel ultimately urged for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Following points arise for consideration: (1) Has it been proved that deceased Balaji died in an accident involving motorbike bearing Registration No. MH-17/BR-7090? (2) Are claimants entitled to compensation and if yes, what shall be the quantum? 7. The R/6 Mukesh runs hotel, “Archana”. Deceased Balaji was serving with his hotel as a Waiter. The deceased was on duty on 24/8/2017. His brother Avadhut had also been serving as a Waiter with the very hotel. It is the case of the claimants that, after closure of the hotel, late in the evening of 24/8/2017, R/6 and deceased were on their way home on the motorbike. R/6 was riding the motorbike. The deceased was riding pillion. The motorbike is said to have slipped all of a sudden. Both of them fell off the motorbike. An unknown vehicle approaching from behind ran over the deceased. He was rushed to the hospital at Newasa, but in vain. Avadhut, brother of the deceased, therefore, lodged the report of the accident with Newasa Police Station. The report is at Exh.27. The motorbike is said to have slipped all of a sudden. Both of them fell off the motorbike. An unknown vehicle approaching from behind ran over the deceased. He was rushed to the hospital at Newasa, but in vain. Avadhut, brother of the deceased, therefore, lodged the report of the accident with Newasa Police Station. The report is at Exh.27. Admittedly, Avadhut had not witnessed the accident. The report (Exh.27) is also silent to state who told him of the accident. Avadhut stated in his report Exh.27 that his employer - R/6 owned motorbike, No. MH-17/BP-9747. Both the deceased and R/6 were on way home on the said motorbike. The deceased hailed from Nanded. His dead body was, therefore, taken to his native in Nanded district. In the set of police papers on record, there is supplementary statement said to have been given by Avadhut the next day i.e. on 25th. In the said statement, he changed the motorbike number from No. MH-17/BP-9747 to No. MH-17/BR-7090. On close reading of the entire evidence in the case and the police papers as well, it does appear that, there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to indicate involvement of the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090. If R/6 really was in the company of the deceased, it was for him to rush the deceased to the hospital and report the matter to the concerned Police Station at the earliest. He was nowhere on the scene. For this Court, his presence could only be felt through his consenting written statement. Strong reliance is placed on the scene of accident panchanama and the evidence of the investigating officer and the panch witness. The panchanama Exh.28 was drawn soon after the report of the accident was registered. Close reading of the panchanama would reveal that, what the investigating officer noticed at the site was blood stains and nothing more. Both the investigating officer and the panch witness gave false evidence on oath. Both of them claimed to have seen the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 at the site when panchanama was being drawn. The contents of the panchanama falsify their claim. Avadhut, in his supplementary statement, claimed to have brought the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 to the police station. As such, it is a case wherein there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to indicate involvement of the motorbike. The contents of the panchanama falsify their claim. Avadhut, in his supplementary statement, claimed to have brought the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 to the police station. As such, it is a case wherein there is neither direct nor circumstantial evidence to indicate involvement of the motorbike. R/6 - employer of the deceased appears to have been in collusion with the claimants. The motorbike turned out to have belonged to R/7 herein. The Tribunal relied on the evidence of the investigating officer Ravindra Pawar and panch witness Rajendra Borude to observe that the offending motorbike was lying at the site of the accident. The said observation is grossly inconsistent with the evidence on record. A mere fact that R/6 was proceeded against by filing the charge sheet would in no way lead to infer involvement of the motorbike No. MH-17/BR-7090 in the alleged accident. 8. This being a First Appeal, all the points involved therein need to be addressed. On close reading of the impugned award, the Tribunal has rightly worked out the amount of compensation payable to the claimants. This Court has no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The claim petition would, however, fail since the claimants miserably failed to make out a case of involvement of the motorbike, No. MH-17/BR-7090. 9. In the result, the appeal succeeds. The impugned award is set aside. The Claim Petition is dismissed.