JUDGMENT S. G. Dige, J. - Heard learned counsel for appellant. 2. The issue involved in this appeal is non involvement of vehicle and negligence of deceased. 3. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant that the accident was occurred on 7th February 2011, whereas the FIR was registered on 9th February 2011, there was delay of 2 days it shows the false involvement of the vehicle, but this fact is not considered by the Tribunal and has awarded the compensation, which is improper. Accident was occurred due to sole negligence of deceased but it was not considered by the Tribunal. Hence, requested to allow the appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel for appellant, perused judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. 5. It is contention of learned counsel for appellant that offending vehicle was not involved in the accident. It appears from the record that on 7th February 2011 at about 7 pm. deceased Ramchandra was proceeding from Ganesh temple to Gudhe Vaichalwadi via Talmavale to Pawarwadi road, at that time jeep No. MH-11-H-6023 came in a high speed and dashed to deceased Ramchandra. Due to said dash, Ramchandra sustained multiple grievous injuries and he succumbed to his injuries while taking treatment. Thereafter, in investigation, police found the involvement of the offending jeep and registered the offence against the driver of the offending jeep. The Tribunal has observed that the police machinery after receipt of an information of an accident made inquiry and came to the conclusion that the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the jeep driver. The insurance company came forward with the defence of contributory negligence of the deceased, however, no evidence is produced on record. Therefore, the Tribunal has held that the said accident was occurred due to negligence of jeep driver. 6. In my view, the appellant insurance company did not take defense of non involvement of offending jeep before the Tribunal, hence, they can't take said defence before this Court. Moreover, no evidence was adduced by the appellant insurance company before the Tribunal about non involvement of the jeep in the said accident as well as negligence of deceased. Without any evidence, the Court cannot consider the plea of the appellant about the non involvement of the vehicle and negligence of deceased. Hence, I do not find infirmity in the observation of Tribunal. I pass following order. Without any evidence, the Court cannot consider the plea of the appellant about the non involvement of the vehicle and negligence of deceased. Hence, I do not find infirmity in the observation of Tribunal. I pass following order. ORDER i. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to cost. ii. Original claimants are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by appellant along with accrued interest thereon, if not withdrawn earlier. iii. The statutory amount deposited by appellant be transferred to the Tribunal. The parties are permitted for refund for the said amount as per Rule. iv. Delay of 73 days for filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be registered for record purpose. 6. Civil Application stands disposed of.