S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—The third respondent - insurance company in MVC No. 231/2007 on the file of MACT, Mysore has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award dated 30.8.2008, so far as it pertains to awarding compensation to the claimants for the death of one Srinivas Kulkarni in the alleged road accident said to have taken place on 10.10.2003 in Gulbarga Town. The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

Claimants before the tribunal are widow and son of Srinivas Kulkarni, an employee of Baba Atomic Research Centre (for short "BARC"). It is stated that on 10.10.2003 the said Srinivas Kulkarni who was an employee of Baba Atomic Research Centre and permanent resident of Mysore, had gone to visit his parents in his native place Gulbarga and in the evening, he had gone out of the house. At around 7.00 PM, his father received a phone call from the Police Station stating that Srinivas Kulkarni died in a road accident near Aland Check Post on Ring Road, Gulbarga.

2. The said information was received by them at 7.30 PM over telephone. Thereafter, it is stated that his father Sripad Rao Kulkarni went to the place of accident, found that his son was lying dead on the road with injuries to his head and other parts of the body and it is stated that a complaint was lodged by him informing the police regarding the death of his son, based on which FIR was registered about hit and run case resulting in the death of Srinivas Kulkarni.

3. It is stated that thereafter, police said to have identified the vehicle which caused the accident resulting in the death of Srinivas Kulkarni. Thereafter, proceedings were initiated for prosecuting the driver of the offending vehicle for causing the death of Srinivas Kulkarni. Meanwhile, claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of Srinivas Kulkarni by his widow - Smt. Alakananda and his minor son - Sripad, who was aged about 14 years as on that date.

4. The claim petition was initially filed in the Court of MACT, Nanjangud. Subsequently, it was transferred to Mysore and thereafter, evidence was recorded when the said claim petition was in MACT, Mysore. In the said proceedings, the 1st claimant - Smt. Alkananda adduced evidence as PW1 and in support of her claim, marked in all, 10 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 10. On behalf of 2nd respondent - Insurance Company, Sri. Dayananda K. Shetty was examined as RW.1 and in all 7 documents were produced and marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.7.

5. Insofar as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, though written statement is filed by both of them through the counsel, no evidence was adduced. In fact, no cross examination was conducted on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Similarly, claimants witness was also not cross examined by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondents 1 and 2 - the driver and owner of the offending Maruti Van participated in the proceedings only to the extent of filing the written statement and nothing beyond.

6. The tribunal on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to allow the claim petition awarding compensation to the claimants in a sum of Rs. 11,20,000/- payable with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit of entire amount.

7. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company before the tribunal, being aggrieved by the judgment and award so far as it pertains to saddling the liability to pay compensation on the 3rd respondent - Insurance Company has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and award on the ground that the entire claim petition is fraudulent based on concocted, forged and tampered documents and the evidence on record is also blatantly false to the knowledge of the deponent. Therefore, the fraudulent claim made by the wife and son of deceased Srinivas Kulkarni should be set-aside in this appeal.

8. In this appeal, notice was duly served on all the respondents. In this appeal, claimants are first and second respondents and driver and owner