JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed in Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2012 dated 28/09/2021 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The claim petition was allowed. 2. Claim : (i) It is contended that petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are brothers of deceased Salman Jahir Khan, who died in the vehicular accident dated 14/08/2013. (ii) The petitioners contended that on 14/08/2013, Salman Khan was riding a motorcycle bearing No.MH-31-DT-0279 on Bhandara Road and when he reached at Mehta Petrol Pump, near Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur, a truck bearing No.MH-40-Y- 8686 came in a high speed from opposite direction and collided with motorcycle of Salman Khan. The truck driver was driving rashly and negligently. Therefore the accident occurred. As a result of accident, Salman died on the spot. An inquest was drawn up. Post-mortem was conducted. (iii) A Crime No.256 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the said truck under Section 279, 304(A) & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC). (iv) The petitioners further contended that deceased Salman was a driver. He was sole breadwinner of his family. He was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioners were depending on his income. They have suffered a huge financial loss due to his untimely demise. Therefore, they have claimed compensation of Rs.13,96,000/- against the owner and the insurance company of the offending truck respondent Nos.1 & 2. 3. Defence : (i) The insurance company – respondent No.2 contested the claim and denied the material contentions raised in the claim petition, particularly name, age, occupation and income of deceased Salman. (ii) It is contended that the petitioners have filed false claim by fabricating documents not disclosing the name of the employer of Salman and nature of his employment. It is denied that the offending truck was owned by respondent No.1 and the accident occurred with it. The owner of the said motorcycle has not been made party to the petition. He is a necessary party. Further more, it is stated that Salman was not having a valid driving license to drive it. The insurance company, lastly prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4. The learned tribunal framed following issues: (1) Whether the driver of the Truck bearing No. MH-40-Y-8686 was driving it rashly and negligently ? He is a necessary party. Further more, it is stated that Salman was not having a valid driving license to drive it. The insurance company, lastly prayed for the dismissal of the application. 4. The learned tribunal framed following issues: (1) Whether the driver of the Truck bearing No. MH-40-Y-8686 was driving it rashly and negligently ? (2) Whether by such driving, said Truck dashed the Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle of the deceased and caused his death ? (3) Whether deceased was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month ? (4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (5) Whether there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy? (6) To what compensation, petitioners are entitled ? (7) What order ? 5. The learned tribunal, after framing issues, held that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,49,000/- to the claimants. 6. The learned advocate for the appellant – the Insurance company, during the argument submitted that this is a false claim made by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the cross-examination of the claimant Khairun (AW-1), in which she had given evasive answers. The name of the deceased, as mentioned in the post-mortem report at Exhibit-33 is doubtful that Salman Khan Zahir Khan @ Jasvant Yadav, resident of Bharat Nagar Kalamana, Nagpur. The inquest panchnama dated 15/03/2013 also discloses similar two names. She submitted that there is no any explanation on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as to why there are two names of one person. The petitioners failed to produce relevant documents to establish their relationship with the deceased and they are not dependents. She further pointed out that this is a false case. It is lastly prayed to allow the appeal and set aside impugned judgment. 7. The learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 during argument submitted that sufficient evidence has been adduced on record to establish the right to compensation. The name of deceased, son of respondent No.1 is stated in the FIR Exhibit-30. There is finding of the learned Tribunal that, no such fraudulent case has been established by the appellant- Insurance company as held in para No.7 of the impugned judgment. The name of deceased, son of respondent No.1 is stated in the FIR Exhibit-30. There is finding of the learned Tribunal that, no such fraudulent case has been established by the appellant- Insurance company as held in para No.7 of the impugned judgment. The learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 also pointed out that, reasons and findings of the tribunal are legal and correct and therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. 8. After hearing both the sides at length, this court, by an order dated 12/12/2024 on the request of the advocate, granted the respondents an opportunity to produce documents regarding deceased Salman Khan particularly his birth certificate, his school leaving certificate, his Adhar card, his election identity card, his ration card, his bank book, his statement of bank account or extract of bank account and the voters list showing his name. 9. This appeal was fixed on 18/12/2024 for final hearing and production of above stated documents, if any. On 18/12/2024 the learned advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 could not produce the documents. Subsequently, two days time was granted and the appeal was fixed for production of above stated documents, if any. However, no such documents were produced on record. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final hearing on 20/12/2024 . On that day also, no such documents were produced on record. Therefore, this court concluded the hearing of this appeal and reserved it for judgment. 10. Perused the impugned judgment, grounds of objection of this appeal and the record and proceedings. 11. The following points emerged for decision of this appeal. (i) Had the respondents fabricated false documentary evidence in order to claim compensation amount fraudulently ? (ii) Are the impugned judgment and award illegal, incorrect and require interference? 12. The post-mortem report Exhibit-33 and inquest Exhibit-32 are very clearly showing two names i.e. Salman Khan Zahir Khan @ Jasvant Yadav, a resident of Bharat Nagar Kalamana. In First Information Report Exhibit-30 two names are not stated. It is not the case of the respondents / claimants that the deceased, Salman Khan was converted and therefore, there are two names in these two documents. The incident allegedly occurred on 14/08/2023 and spot panchanama was drawn up on the same day. The inquest was drawn up on second day i.e. on 15/08/2013. The Post- mortem report was also drawn up on 15/08/2013. The incident allegedly occurred on 14/08/2023 and spot panchanama was drawn up on the same day. The inquest was drawn up on second day i.e. on 15/08/2013. The Post- mortem report was also drawn up on 15/08/2013. The report was lodged and registered on 14/08/2013, in which the name of Jasvant Yadav is not mentioned. 13. It would be appropriate to discuss the relevant part of cross- examination Exhibit-28 of respondent No.1 Khairun (P.W.1), in which she had given evasive answers as to existence of her relations with her alleged son Salman during her cross- examination. She further stated that she did not know who was the owner of the motorcycle involved in that accident used by Salman. According to her, her son was employed as a driver and possessed a valid driving license for a four wheeler vehicle, but she does not know where it was lost. She further stated that she had not obtained the copy of the driving license nor made any inquiries regarding nature of that driving license. She also stated that her son had not attended school and she did not obtain his birth certificate from village where he was born. If it is certain that Salman Khan was born in a village, his birth certificate must be available, but it was not produced on record. Thus, the best possible evidence is not produced on record. From the above admissions and tenor of the answers given in the cross- examination of claimant (PW-1) Khairun and the orders passed by this court directing to produce the relevant documents relating to Salman Khan, it is crystal clear that no such documents were in existence. 14. This court had given two opportunities to the claimants- respondents to produce any of the document. These documents are naturally expected to be in the custody of the respondents, but they failed to produce it. Not only this a notice Exhibit-38 to produce documents as per Rule-16 of Order-XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was served on the respondents / claimants. Say is filed by claimants on it but no such documents were filed on record. Therefore, as per illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents, suggesting that the documents in question are not existence and as a result, they have not produced those documents. Say is filed by claimants on it but no such documents were filed on record. Therefore, as per illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, an adverse inference can be drawn against the respondents, suggesting that the documents in question are not existence and as a result, they have not produced those documents. The burden to prove the relationship of Salman with respondents is not discharged by them. Therefore, their claim must fail. 15. From the conduct of the respondents discussed above it is crystal clear that, they have intentionally filed this claim by fabricating false documents in order to fraudulently obtaining amount of compensation. For that purpose, the investigating officer, who investigated the crime against the driver of the offending vehicle, should have properly inquired as to who was that person who died in that accident and why he had two names as well as who was owner of that motorcycle. Thus, identity of Salman, who allegedly died in that accident is not proved. The claimants are not his relatives and dependents, which goes to the root of this matter. Therefore, a reasonable doubt creates against the respondents / claimants that, respondents have fabricated false documents in collusion with the investigating officer and filed the false petition for compensation. The learned Tribunal did not consider all these aspects in its proper perspective. Therefore, this court is of view that the reasons and findings given by the Tribunal are neither legal nor correct particularly given in para 7 of the impugned judgment. Hence argument of learned advocate for the respondents is not acceptable in this regard. 16. Learned advocate for the claimants / respondents pointed out the judgment of acquittal of the driver of the offending truck in which witness Gautam Kavduji Shambharkar (PW-1) had stated that he identified Salman Khan. He pointed out that Investigating Officer Nivruti Bhimrao Ghorpade has stated same facts. But judgment of Criminal Court is not binding upon Civil Court. Hence, this fact of acquittal of driver of offending vehicle is not useful to the claimants. Hence argument of respondents’ advocate is not acceptable in this regard. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IN RE : Perry Kansagra.. But judgment of Criminal Court is not binding upon Civil Court. Hence, this fact of acquittal of driver of offending vehicle is not useful to the claimants. Hence argument of respondents’ advocate is not acceptable in this regard. 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of IN RE : Perry Kansagra.. Alleged Contemnor, reported in 2022 Live Law (SC) 576, observed as under : “A person who makes a false statement before the Court and makes an attempt to deceive the Court, interferes with the administration of justice and is guilty of contempt of Court. The Court not only has the inherent power but it would be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt with in contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court.” 18. While concluding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also held that the Court has not only inherent power, but it would also be failing in its duty if the alleged contemnor is not dealt within contempt jurisdiction for abusing the process of the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court thereafter directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), New Delhi through its Director to initiate appropriate proceedings by registering criminal proceedings against that contemnor.” 19. The investigating officer who investigated that crime had not taken pains as to who is the person died in that accident. It creates reasonable doubt about his inaction which amounts to dereliction in duty. There is a possibility of the existence of racket of the people like claimants / petitioners, police and others and for taking pecuniary disadvantage, they must have also been involved in such illegal activities of fabricating false documents which is established from cross-examination of Smt. Khairun (AW-1) and the conduct of all the respondents / claimants. Therefore, it would be appropriate to take serious actions in light of the grave nature of criminal mischief on the part of respondents and investigating officer etc. Therefore, it is necessary to direct the appellant – Insurance Company to lodge report to register a crime for cheating, fabricating false documents and committing fraud upon both the insurance company and the court against the claimants / respondent Nos.1 to 3, and others viz Nivrutti Bhimrao Ghorpade and witness Gautam Kavduji Shambharkar and other unknown persons as per the relevant provisions of IPC etc., for fabricating false documents and evidences. 20. 20. It would be also appropriate to take an action for criminal contempt of this court against the claimants / petitioners. Therefore, it is necessary to give direction to the Registry of this Court to file an application for contempt of court against the respondents / claimants. For the reasons discussed above, the argument of the learned advocate for the respondents-claimants is not acceptable that it is not false case. 21. This is not only criminal mischief but also a civil mischief it would be proper to saddle a heavy costs of Rs.50,000/- on the respondents / claimants. The said costs be paid to “Ahsas”Siddharth Samajik Vikas Sanstha, in its Account No.130820110000494, IFSC Code-BKID0001308, Bank of India, Branch Powai Naka, Satara, the social institution, which works for the children suffering from mental health. Hence following order. ORDER A) The appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment and award are set aside. Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2012 is dismissed. (B) The respondents are jointly and severally directed to deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) in this court within a period of three months in this court. If it is not deposited, the respondents will have to pay 9% interest on it until its realization from the date of uploading of this judgment. After the costs are deposited, it be transferred to the “Ahsas” Siddharth Samajik Vikas Sanstha, in its Account No.130820110000494, IFSC Code-BKID0001308, Bank of India, Branch Powai Naka, Satara, which is working for persons suffering from mental health. (C) The registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to inform the present appellant -Insurance Company to lodge the report against the respondents and investigating officer etc. (D) The Registrar (Judicial) of this court is further directed to file suo motu criminal contempt petition against the respondents and investigating officer as held in the reasons and findings of this judgment. (E) The Civil Application No.1270 of 2022 for withdrawal of amount deposited as per award, is rejected. The appellant is entitled to withdraw that amount alongwith interest thereon. (F) R & P be sent back.