JUDGMENT : PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The HDFC Ergo General Insurance company (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) has filed this miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,50,000/- alongwith @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of filing the claim petition. 2. The insurance company questions the occurrence of the accident, assessment of the deceased salary, future prospects and consortium amount awarded to respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. Vide impugned award the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.40,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of claim, the break up of the same, under different heads, is as under: Loss of income Rs. 25,48,560/- Future prospects Rs. 12,74,280/- Loss of estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium (Rs. 40,000/- to each) Rs. 1,60,000/- Total compensation Rs. 40,12,840 Rounded off Rs. 40,50,000/- 4. Counsel for the claimants-respondents supported the impugned award. 5. Heard counsels of both the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned award. Factual aspect regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and its rash & negligent driving by respondent No. 4: 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the occurrence of the accident with the offending vehicle is highly doubtful as the FIR does not disclose the number of the offending vehicle. 7. The FIR was lodged by Hariom who was allegedly travelling with the deceased on the motorcycle but he did not mention the offending vehicle’s details. Further, at the relevant period deceased was ASI in Rajasthan Police and Hariom was a Constable. 8. He also argues that the non-examination of Hariom and the non-production of his injury report cast doubt over the claimants’ claim. Moreover, evidence of AW-2 Prem Prakash, as the eye witness to the incident, creates suspicion and material contrariety in his testimony, which questions the occurrence. 9. The MLC of the deceased demonstrates that the accident occurred due to the sudden loss of the deceased over the bike but the Tribunal ignored the vital fact. Further the deceased was brought to the hospital by the injured Hariom and on his information the fact about the incident was mentioned in the MLC. This exhibits that later on the offending vehicle was involved only for claiming compensation. Further the deceased was brought to the hospital by the injured Hariom and on his information the fact about the incident was mentioned in the MLC. This exhibits that later on the offending vehicle was involved only for claiming compensation. The Tribunal also ignored the testimony of NAW-1 Satish Kumar Sharma, who exhibited the Ex.NA-1 and Ex.NA-2 (News Published in the Newspaper). Furthermore, the investigator examined on behalf of the appellant as NAW-2 K.V. Vijayan produced the certified copies of the criminal case initiated against the driver of the insured vehicle precisely indicating the fact of turning hostile of AW-2 Prem Prakash. The owner of the offending vehicle also did not support the version of the prosecution. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for recalling and further re-examining AW-2 Prem Prakash and summoning the material witnesses Hariom and Dr Omprakash. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted by the concerned Magistrate vide Judgment Ex.NA-11. Therefore, the entire claim filed by the claimants is false and the impugned award needs to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vaijanti and Others, 1995 (1) T.A.C. 659 (MP), Smt. Remavati Devi and Others vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1042/1997, decided on 20.09.2011, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahila Munnidevi and Others, 1993 ACJ 1066 (MP), Minu B. Mehta and Another vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Another, 1977 ACJ 188 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal and Others, 2007 (2) T.A.C. 417 (SC), Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Akeela Bano and Others, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1710/2022, decided on 17.01.2023, Rajender vs. Om Prakash and Others, 2007 (1) MACD (Raj.) 361 and Mala Ram vs. Roopa Ram and Others, 2004 RAR 543 (Raj.). 11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 supported and justified the finding arrived at by the Tribunal and placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyal and Others, 2007 (3) Supreme 136 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Shrabani Roy and Others, Gaurabai and Others vs. Jagdish Prasad and Others, 1984 ACJ 360 and Smt. Madu and Others vs. Manu Lal and Others, 2003 R.A.R. 245 (Raj.). 12. Ltd. vs. Shrabani Roy and Others, Gaurabai and Others vs. Jagdish Prasad and Others, 1984 ACJ 360 and Smt. Madu and Others vs. Manu Lal and Others, 2003 R.A.R. 245 (Raj.). 12. To succeed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claimants have to show that the offending vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently. As far as the factual aspects regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and the driver's rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of the deceased Ramprasd are concerned, the claimants’ case pivots around the charge-sheet alongwith its supporting documents and on the deposition of AW-2 Prem Prakash. 13. Exhibit-1 is FIR lodged by Hariom. In the FIR Hariom has stated that on 29.07.2012 he and deceased ASI Rambhajan (Chauki in-charge PS Sagarpada, Dholpur) proceeded from the police station in search of goons towards Delhi, on a motorcycle bearing registration No. RJ11-SD-6006 Super Splender. The motorcycle was driven by Rambhajan. At about 12 AM midnight while crossing the Alawpur Chauk a Truck bearing registration No. RJ11-GA-5959 coming from the Bus stand Palwal hit the motorcycle from the back, resulting in injuries to him and Rambhajan. The truck driver fled away with the truck hence he could not ascertain its number and driver's name. The FIR further states that with the support of public ASI Rambhajan was carried to the General Hospital, Palwal and further referred to BK Hospital Faridabad. 14. The police registered the FIR under Sections 279 & 337 of the Indian Penal Code and initiated the investigation. During the investigation deceased Ram Bhajan succumbed to injuries and Section 304 of the IPC was added. Police after an investigation found the involvement of the offending truck in the accident and apprehended its driver Bhanwar and proceeded to file a charge sheet under Sections 279, 337 and 304A of the IPC. 15. AW-2 Prem Prakash in his statement has deposed about the occurrence and stated that the offending truck hit the motorcycle from the back resulting in injuries to Ram Bhajan and Hariom. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was known to him since 1994. The presence of this witness at the time of the accident appears to be highly sceptical. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the deceased was known to him since 1994. The presence of this witness at the time of the accident appears to be highly sceptical. The accident took place at about midnight and the deceased was known to the witness despite the fact he did not report the incident to the police. He did not even furnish the truck number, or details of the offending truck to the nearest police station. His presence at odd hours also creates doubt. 16. The witness further deposed that he took the deceased to the Gurunanak Hospital whereas the medical records collected by the police and submitted before the Tribunal clearly reveal that the deceased was admitted to OM SPERO Hospital, after getting referred from the Civil Hospital, Palwal. Thus on this aspect also the witness has deposed contrary to the record. 17. Further, it is highly unlikely for a witness to see the number etc. of the fleeing vehicle at midnight. Moreover, as per the FIR instituted by Hariom, the offending Truck fled away after hitting the motorcycle and he could not see the number of the offending vehicle. Hariom accompanied the deceased to the govt hospital and then to the referral hospital. Therefore, the statement of AW-2 Prem Prakash comes under the shadow of scepticism and it is very difficult to trust his testimony. It is also relevant to state that the appellant Insurance Company submitted the application for recalling and cross-examining the AW-2 placing his statement Ex.NA-10 recorded by the concerned criminal court but the said application was rejected. Though it is correct that the Insurance Company did not challenge the dismissal of the said application however, it is relevant to state that the strict principles of evidence are not applicable in deciding the motor accident claims. 18. After perusing the statement of Premprakash Ex.NA-10 rendered in the concerned criminal court it becomes more ever difficult to rely upon his testimony. In his statement Ex.NA-10 he deposed that he did not remember the Truck number. 19. In civil cases, preponderance of the probabilities means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the Tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.” 20. In his statement Ex.NA-10 he deposed that he did not remember the Truck number. 19. In civil cases, preponderance of the probabilities means that degree of certainty of belief in the mind of the Tribunal of fact or the Court by which it is convinced that the existence of a fact is more probable than its non-existence.” 20. Though it is true that in a claim case court ought not minutely examine the evidence only to find fault likewise in a criminal case, nevertheless, it is the righteous obligation of the Tribunal or a Court to scour at least the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the versions are likely probable or not. 21. In the case at hand, the circumstances lean more in favour of the appellant Company in comparison to that of the claimantsrespondents. This Court is not convinced that AW-2 Prem Prakash actually saw the accident from the Truck bearing registraton No. RJ11-GA-5959. Rather appellant has proved that the accident occurred by an unidentified truck, which fled away from the place of occurrence. It appears that in order to claim the compensation claimants have contrived the criminal proceedings and orchestrated AW-2 Premprakash as an eyewitness. This court is not oblivion to the truth that the entire family suffers due to the untimely demise of the bread earner but “fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant). It is a pristine maxim which has never lost its spirit over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed that “no judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything” (Lazarus Estates Ltd. vs. Beasley, 1956 (1) QB 7) 22. All these facets would go to divulge that the Truck and its driver were implicated in this case only for the intention of pursuing an insurance claim by filing a false complaint. Though the material evidence is very much available for its appreciation, the Tribunal has failed to evaluate all this evidence while discerning the element of negligence and liability and erroneously fastened liability on the insurance company. The Tribunal did not mull over the evidence on the elements of principles of the preponderance of probability despite the fact that in the FIR vehicle number was not disclosed and the evidence of AW-2 Prem Prakash was under the clouds. The Tribunal did not mull over the evidence on the elements of principles of the preponderance of probability despite the fact that in the FIR vehicle number was not disclosed and the evidence of AW-2 Prem Prakash was under the clouds. Unsubstantial submission of the indictment in the criminal case against the driver of the Truck, without any convincing conceivable evidence is not enough to infer the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. It is desired from the learned Presiding Officer to at least refer to and evaluates the evidence put forth by the contesting parties. Accordingly, on this account alone, the appeal is entitled to be accepted. It is unnecessary to examine the rest of the objections put forward by the counsel of the appellant as a substantive issue to prove the involvement of the vehicle has been affirmatively established to be improbable. 23. Corollary to the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered belief that the vehicle viz. Truck bearing registration No. RJ11- GA- 5959 was not at all involved in the accident, in the present case. 24. Resultantly, the liability trussed against the insurer of the said vehicle is erroneous. 25. The upshot to the above, the appeal succeeds and the award of the Learned Tribunal is set aside.