JUDGMENT : This appeal, though listed for orders, is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) has been filed by the Insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar, in M.V.C.No.2/2008. 3. Parties will be referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 29.04.2007 the deceased-Pankaj was travelling with his friend in his own car bearing registration No.KA-32/M-4093 from Panvel-Pune bypass road. At about 1.30 a.m., container lorry bearing registration No.TD-03/A-9784 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed into the vehicle of the deceased due to which the deceased-Pankaj sustained grievous injuries and died while on treatment in the hospital. 5. The claimants on account of death of their son filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal contending that the deceased was a Mechanical Engineer at Bengaluru and was earning huge sums of money every month and taking care of them. His loss resulted in the family being put to great jeopardy. 6. Upon service of notice, the first respondent/owner of the vehicle remained absent and he was placed exparte. The second respondent/Insurance company appeared and filed objections. Age, avocation, income and cause of death were all denied by the Insurance company. It was further contended by the Insurance company that the vehicle was being driven by the driver in a drunken state. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. 8. The claimants, in order to prove their case, produced 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8 but not the policy and examined one witness on their behalf. On the other hand, the Insurance Company neither marked any document nor examined any witness on their behalf. 9. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment inter alia held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.11,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 10. On the other hand, the Insurance Company neither marked any document nor examined any witness on their behalf. 9. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment inter alia held that the claimants were entitled to compensation of Rs.11,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 10. The Insurance company after the judgment being passed, immediately filed a Civil Miscellaneous Petition before the same Court seeking review/recall of the judgment rendered on 11.08.2010 on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was not even insured with them and the original policy was not placed before the Tribunal on which it was contended that the claimants have played fraud to get the compensation amount. 11. The Tribunal not accepting the plea of the Insurance company dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition by its order dated 26.03.2016 on the ground that sufficient opportunity was given to the Insurance company to lead evidence and they have not utilized the same. It is challenging these orders, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance company. 12. Heard Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company and Smt. Umadevi S. Babshetty, learned counsel for respondent/claimants. 13. Sri Manvendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company would contend that the policy itself is not in existence as the vehicle involved in the accident is not insured with them. Therefore, he would contend that the claimants have played fraud in securing the order at the hands of the Tribunal. 14. On the other hand, Smt. Umadevi S. Babshetty, learned counsel for respondent/claimants though accepts that no insurance policy was placed before the Tribunal, but would contend that she is in possession of a certified copy of the insurance policy which covers the period of accident and if an opportunity is given would place the same before the Tribunal. 15. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials on record. 16. One fact which is not in dispute in the case at hand is that neither the Insurance company nor the claimants produced insurance policy-vital document that was necessary to hold the Insurance company liable to pay the compensation. Perused the materials on record. 16. One fact which is not in dispute in the case at hand is that neither the Insurance company nor the claimants produced insurance policy-vital document that was necessary to hold the Insurance company liable to pay the compensation. Though the Insurance company was given opportunity to lead evidence, they failed to do before the Tribunal both in the claim petition as well as in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed seeking review of the order. But the fact remains that if the policy itself is not in existence, it would go to the root of the matter in assessing the quantum of compensation and liability as to who should make good the compensation. Since the allegation is one of the fraud and if proved by the Insurance company would unravel the entire proceedings instituted by the claimants before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have considered at the out set whether the policy on the strength of which compensation to be paid by the Insurance company is in existence or not and if policy was not in existence, it would clearly be a case of fraud which would annul the entire claim. 17. Therefore, in my considered view, this is a fit case where the Tribunal will have to reconsider the matter afresh after recording the evidence in accordance with law, after examination of the existence of the policy or otherwise in favour of the claimants. 18. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following : ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 11.08.2010 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-I and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bidar in MVC No.2/2008 is set aside. ii. The matter is remitted to the hands of the Tribunal to reconsider the same afresh keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. iii. Since both the parties are represented before this Court, they shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.03.2021 without further notice. iv. The Tribunal shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings within six months from 22.03.2021. The amount in deposit is directed to be transmitted to the Tribunal. In view of disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2016 for stay does not survive for consideration and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.