JUDGMENT :

1. This is a claimants' appeal calling in question the correctness of the judgment dated 31.03.2016 in MVC No.1823/2013 by the learned IV Addl. District & Sessions Judge & MACT No.XIII, Vijayapura.

2. Brief facts of the case as emerging from the claim petition are that on 29.03.2013 between 8.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., while deceased Shrishail Kore was riding motorcycle bearing registration No.MH-45/C-1832 towards Achakanahalli, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-28-M-5389 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle and on account of the same, Shrishail Kore died due to impact injuries. The claim petition filed by his dependents came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment by the learned MACT which disbelieved the involvement of the offending vehicle in causing the accident.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants Sri Babu H.Metagudda strenuously contended that the learned Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition has totally overlooked the material evidence produced before the Court and therefore the impugned judgment is unsustainable. He further contended that suggestion put to PW.2 on behalf of the Insurance Company shows that the respondents had not seriously questioned the involvement of the vehicle in causing the accident. He submitted that since the charge sheet was filed after investigation by an independent agency like the police against the offending vehicle, insurance company having not challenged it before the competent authority, cannot question the finding in the same and therefore it has to be held that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. He further contended that from a comprehensive reading of the evidence, it is crystal clear that the offending vehicle was very much involved in causing the accident and therefore the finding of the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside and the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration.

4. Learned counsel for the insurance company, per contra, vehemently contended that learned Tribunal has exhaustively considered the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and also the fact that the vehicle was seized only as late as on 10.07.2013 even though the accident had taken place on 29.03.2013 and had come to the correct conclusion that it is impossible to believe that the offending vehicle was involved in the accident. He submitted that it was not at all possible for the insurance company to challenge the charge sheet and therefore the courts cannot act entirely on the finding of the charge sheet for the purpose of coming to a conclusion that particular vehicle was involved in the accident or not. He submits that the Tribunal has given a correct finding and there is absolutely no material whatsoever to interfere with the same and therefore the appeal should be dismissed.

5. Perusal of the judgment under consideration shows that upon painstaking scrutiny of entire relevant evidentiary material, the learned Tribunal has come to the conclusion that involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident is not proved.

6. We are completely in agreement with the said finding of the learned Tribunal. However, with due deference to the vehement submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to make reference to the contentions advanced by him and the materials available on record.

7. Firstly, as rightly noticed by the learned Tribunal, PW.1 who is the widow of deceased has forthrightly admitted that owner of the offending vehicle arrayed as respondent No.1 is none other than the younger brother of deceased himself. This assumes relevance in this case, because in the complaint lodged immediately after the accident, the vehicle was shown as unknown vehicle and not even the registration number of the vehicle was indicated therein. The alleged offending vehicle came to be produced before the police voluntarily by respondent No.1, younger brother of deceased on 10.07.2013. This large gap between the date of ac