JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and awards dated 22.02.2021 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.19,20,000/- in the case of Dhudaram and Rs.14,81,000/- in the case of Smt. Jashoda alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing application i.e. 06.05.2016. 2. The applications for compensation were filed by the claimants inter alia with the submissions that on 17.12.2015 Ramkishan and Ramesh were riding on a motorcycle, when at around 09:30 p.m., the offending vehicle, which was being driven rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and struck the motorcycle resulting in grievous injurious to both Ramkishan and Ramesh, to which they succumbed. 3. On account of the untimely death of both Ramkishan and Ramesh compensation was sought. 4. Reply to the applications was filed by owner and driver of the vehicle denying that the accident occur on account of any negligence of the driver of the vehicle and in the alternate submitted that liability was that of the Insurance Company. 5. The appellant - Insurance Company filed its reply and took defence that the driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence, the policy conditions have been violated and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable. 6. Based on the averments of the parties, the Tribunal framed five issues. On behalf of the claimants, five witnesses were examined and 51 documents were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was produced. 7. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by driver of the insured vehicle and based on the evidence, which came on record, awarded compensation as noticed hereinbefore. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company made submissions that the insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and the same has been wrongly implicated by the claimants and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 9. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by one - Madanlal uncle of deceased - Ramesh Kumar, however, he was not produced as witness. 9. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged by one - Madanlal uncle of deceased - Ramesh Kumar, however, he was not produced as witness. Further, the witness (AW-2) - Jetharam, who was produced as eye witness, his statement could not be relied on and, therefore, apparently the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard deserves to be set aside and the applications for compensation deserve to be rejected. 10. Learned counsel appearing on caveat for respondent No.1 - Dhudaram & Ors. supported the award impugned. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the judgment impugned as well as the record of the Tribunal. 12. It was the case of the applicants that the deceased - Ramkishan and Ramesh were riding on the motorcycle and suffered the accident from the insured vehicle a pick up, which was coming from the wrong side, struck the motorcycle resulting in grievous injuries to both Ramkishan and Ramesh, to which they succumbed. The first version i.e. the FIR lodged by Madanlal, though did not indicate the registration number of the vehicle, however, it was specifically indicated that the accident occurred from a pick up. The first informant - Madanlal did not claim that he was eye witness to the accident and, therefore, even if the said first informant - Madanlal has not been produced by the claimants, the same has no implication at all. 13. Jetharam - (AW-2) clearly made averments that he saw the accident, wherein, the insured vehicle was being driven, rashly and negligently, struck the motorcycle and that he noted down the number of the pick up. 14. No material cross-examination of the said witness was done to discredit his evidence except for giving him a general suggestion that he was telling lies and that he had not seen the accident. 15. A look at the statement of (AW-2) - Jetharam and the nature of cross-examination, which has been conducted, it cannot be said that the said witness (AW-2) - Jetharam was, wrongly, believed by the Tribunal. 16. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant seeking to contend that the insured vehicle was, wrongly implicated has no substance, the same is, therefore, rejected. No other aspect was argued. 17. 16. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant seeking to contend that the insured vehicle was, wrongly implicated has no substance, the same is, therefore, rejected. No other aspect was argued. 17. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in these appeals, the same are, therefore, dismissed. 18. The record of the Tribunal be sent back immediately.