JUDGMENT : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and award dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur in MAC Case No. 189/2022 (355/2019) (NCV No. 189/2022) whereby the claim petition as preferred by the claimants has been dismissed. Learned Tribunal while deciding Issue Nos.1 & 3 specifically held that the vehicle in question was falsely implicated in the accident and hence, the factum of vehicle being involved in the accident having not been proved, the claim petition was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal has erroneously decided Issues No. 1 & 3 against the claimants whereas the factum of the accident by the alleged vehicle was clearly proved on record. Learned counsel submitted that AW2 Vagaram was an independent eye witness and there was no reason to disbelieve his statements. Learned counsel further submitted that Vagaram specifically deposed not only about the number of the vehicle (PikUp) involved in the accident but also the name of the driver of the said vehicle. The statements of AW2 Vagaram were corroborated by the statements of AW1 Kamli, who deposed the factum of accident and Sonaram being the driver of the vehicle having been informed by Vagaram. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Tribunal erroneously took into consideration the fact of the owner of the vehicle having deposed in the civil proceedings to the contrary whereas as it is the settled position of law, the statements in the criminal proceedings would have no effect on the civil proceedings. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon a decision rendered in the matter of Shanti & Anr. Vs. Raghuvir & Ors. 2024 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 391. Learned counsel also submitted that in the present matter, the driver and owner of the vehicle specifically admitted the fact of the accident and the vehicle involved in the accident and hence, once it was admitted by the driver and owner themselves, there was no reason to disbelieve the same and hold to the contrary. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 4. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record. 4. This Court is of the specific opinion that the impugned judgment and award does not deserve any interference for the following reasons: (i) FIR (Exhibit-3) was lodged by Kewalram, uncle of the deceased Dhudaram wherein he stated the time and date of the accident to be 8:00 PM on 13.04.2018 whereas the alleged eye witness AW2 Vagaram, deposed that the accident took place on 14.04.2018 in the morning between 7.00 to 8.00 AM. Further, AW2 Vagaram specifically deposed that he not only noted down the number of the PikUp which caused the accident but also identified the driver of the said vehicle. He further admitted that he knew driver Sonaram as he was the resident of his village only. Vagaram further admitted that he was acquainted with Kewalram and even deceased Dhudaram. Interestingly, despite Vagaram knowing the deceased and his family members and even the driver of the vehicle in question, he neither informed the police nor assisted in taking the deceased to the hospital. Further, neither did he wait at the site nor did he inform any person about the accident. As per his version, he left the site within a period of 10 minutes to Jodhpur. It is only after a period of 2-3 days when he went to the deceased’s place for condolence that he informed the family members of the deceased about the accident. It is beyond comprehension that a person, who was known to the deceased and even his family members, would not inform anyone about the accident. The complete version of the alleged eye witness, in the specific opinion of this Court, is totally improbable and does not warrant reliance. (ii) It is admitted on record that the deceased, the alleged driver of the vehicle, and the alleged eye witness Vagaram, all belong to the same village. It is also clear on record that the vehicle in question was seized during police investigation after a period of one month. (ii) It is admitted on record that the deceased, the alleged driver of the vehicle, and the alleged eye witness Vagaram, all belong to the same village. It is also clear on record that the vehicle in question was seized during police investigation after a period of one month. Even if the version of Vagaram having informed about the accident after a period of 2-3 days is assumed to be true, there is no reason why the said information was not passed on to the investigating authority and as to why the vehicle, whose details allegedly were supplied by the so called eye witness, was not seized for a period more than one month. Further, there is no explanation regarding the difference of the date of accident as mentioned in the FIR and as deposed by the alleged eye witness. (iii) NAW1 Vikram, the witness produced on behalf of the Insurance Company specifically deposed that Hariram, the owner of the vehicle in question, who admitted the factum of involvement of the vehicle in the present civil proceedings, specifically denied the same in the criminal proceedings. In the criminal proceedings, the said owner of the vehicle even denied the fact of his having replied to the notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. True it is that the findings in a criminal proceeding would not bind the Civil Court but then, the stark contradictions in the plea/statements of the same witness before a Civil Court and a Criminal Court, cannot be overlooked and ignored. Further, the witness NAW1-Vikram, even got exhibited the statements of the said Hariram and the other witness (NA1 to NA10) to prove those contradictions. Therefore, the ratio of Shanti vs. Raghuvir (supra) would definitely not apply to the present case, the evidence been led and burden been discharged by the insurer in the present case. 5. In view of the overall facts and circumstances and above analysis, this Court is of the view that the findings on issue Nos.1 & 3 as recorded by the learned Tribunal does not deserve any interference. 6. The appeal is hence, dismissed. 7. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.