JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. M. Choudhury and Mr. S.C. Biswas appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Award dated 21.12.2017 passed by the MACT, Bongaigaon in MAC Case No. 40/2013. 3. On 02.12.2012, the appellant, her father and her husband were travelling in a Matiz car bearing regd. No.As-19/8468. They were travelling from Digboy to Dibrugarh. When they reached near Ananda Bag T.E., one truck bearing regd. As-19-C/0445 had hit the Matiz car from behind. The car was driven by the father of the respondent. Because of the said incident, the car lost control and it hit another Scorpio car bearing regd. As-23/J/8600. In the said accident, the father of the respondent instantly died. Other occupancy of the car also sustained serious injuries. 4. The respondent filed a claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation on account of the medical expenses incurred by her during her treatment. The insurance company contested the claim petition by filing the written statement. 5. On the basis of the pleading of both sides, the tribunal framed the following 4(four) issues:- i. Whether Motor Vehicle No. AS-19/C-0445 and AS-23/J-8600 were involved in the said accident, if so, whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle? ii. Whether the claimant Smti. Himakshi Singh Sutradhar sustained bodily injuries in motor vehicle accident due to hit by or by travelling in the vehicle No.AS-19/C-445 and As-23/J-8600? iii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation, if so, to what extend and by whom it is payable? iv. Whether the claimant Smt. Himakshi Singha Sutradhar sustained bodily injuries in motor vehicle accident due to used/ travelling I the vehicle No.AS-19-8468? 6. The respondent examined herself and her husband as witnesses. The appellant did not examine any witnesses. Finally on the basis of the record, the tribunal held that the vehicle bearing regd. As-19/C-0445 was negligent and directed the appellant insurance com. to the pay of Rs.4,83,000/-along with 6% per annum to the calculated from the filing the claim application. 7. Mr. Dey submits that in the said accident three vehicles were involved and the tribunal committed error while holding the vehicle No. As-19/C-0445 to be negligent. 8. Per contra, Ms. As-19/C-0445 was negligent and directed the appellant insurance com. to the pay of Rs.4,83,000/-along with 6% per annum to the calculated from the filing the claim application. 7. Mr. Dey submits that in the said accident three vehicles were involved and the tribunal committed error while holding the vehicle No. As-19/C-0445 to be negligent. 8. Per contra, Ms. Choudhury submits that the oral evidence of the respondent remained unimpeached. Ms. Choudhury further submits that even in the police charge-sheet the said vehicle was held guilty. 9. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides. 10. There is clear evidence that the vehicle No. As-19/C-0445 had hit the Matiz car from behind and the said car lost control and it hit another vehicle. The appellant/insurance company did not examine any witnesses to prove its case. 11. This Court is of the opinion that the learned tribunal correctly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a correct finding. The appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The appellant being the insurer of the vehicle As-19/C-0445, is liable to pay the compensation, as calculated by the tribunal, to the respondent. 12. The appeal stands dismissed. Send back the LCR.