JUDGMENT : 1. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 03.12.2019 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 6/2018 (CIS No. 83/2015) whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 10,60,720/- as compensation to be recovered from the appellants (driver and owner) while exonerating respondent-Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in passing the impugned award. It is submitted that the witnesses AW1-Indrabai and AW2-Dalchand have categorically stated in their statements that the deceased Madan Nath was standing on the side of road and was not sitting over the tractor at the time of the accident. It is further submitted that Madan Nath died as a result of being hit by the tractor, which was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and thus, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award amount. Thus, it was prayed that the impugned judgment and award may be quashed and set aside and the appellants may be exonerated from their liability. 3. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned award. It is submitted that in the Ex.1-FIR, Ex.2-Chargesheet as well as Ex.3-Naksha Mauka, it is mentioned that the deceased Madan Nath was sitting on the tractor and died by falling from the tractor. It is further submitted that the informant (Prabhulal) of the FIR was the real brother of the deceased, who specifically stated in the FIR that the deceased died due to falling from the tractor. It is further submitted that even though the tractor was insured, no premium was charged for passenger and thus, the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal warrants no interference. It is further submitted that the statement of material witness-Tulsiram has not been recorded. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited the following judgments : (i) (2007) 13 SCC 476 : Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors. (ii) SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1546/2020 (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sikander & Ors), decided on 18.8.2023 (iii) SB Civil Misc. Appeal no.4547/2019 (Babu Lal Vs. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited the following judgments : (i) (2007) 13 SCC 476 : Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors. (ii) SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1546/2020 (Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sikander & Ors), decided on 18.8.2023 (iii) SB Civil Misc. Appeal no.4547/2019 (Babu Lal Vs. Kailash Bai & Ors.), decided on 3.5.2023, Jaipur Bench (iv) 2008 RAR 56 (Raj.) : United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pawan Tikkiwal & Ors. (v) 2008 RAR 61 (Raj) : Preeti Mehta Vs. Judge, MACT, Kishangarh (vi) 2009 RAR 146 (Raj.) RSRTC Vs. Balbeer Singh & Anr. 4. Despite service, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents-claimants. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned judgment and the record. 6. On a perusal of record, it is evident that in the Ex.1-FIR, Ex.2-Chargesheet as well as Ex.3-Naksha Mauka, it is mentioned that the deceased Madan Nath died by falling from the tractor. However, no evidence has been produced by the appellants to deny the aforesaid fact. From the record, it appears that the deceased was sitting over the tractor. The tractor did not hit the deceased while he was standing on the side of road. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Premlata Shukla (supra) in paras nos.13 and 14 held as under: “13. However, the factum of an accident could also be proved from the first information report. It is also to be noted that once a part of the contents of the document is admitted in evidence, the party bringing the same on record cannot be permitted to turn round and contend that the other contents contained in the rest part thereof had not been proved. Both the parties have relied thereupon. It was marked as an exhibit as both the parties intended to rely upon them. 14. Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document having been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise.” 8. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved in accordance with law, would not arise.” 8. In Balbeer Singh, the Jaipur Bench of this Court in para no.9 observed as under: “9. It is, indeed, a settled principle of law that “while Man may lie, circumstances do not”. In order to verify the truthfulness of a testimony, the Court should sieve the testimony through the documentary evidence. In case the documents belie the testimony, the testimony should not be accepted as being truthful. At times, while the witnesses may not reveal the complete truth, documents, specifically photographs in the case of accident, are more revealing about the truth. Therefore, learned Tribunal should have tested the testimony of the witnesses on the touchstone of documents, specially the site-plan and the photographs.” 9. In view of the above, it is clear that learned Tribunal, while relying upon the aforesaid documentary evidence, has not committed any illegality. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is well reasoned and thus, warrants no interference. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 11. The stay petition also stands disposed of in the above terms. 12. Office is directed to send back the record of the case.