K.Kannan, J.

1. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging liability on the ground that the death alleged to have resulted by the involvement of the insureds vehicle was a fabricated version and the vehicle was not involved at all in the accident. It was a case wrought out on collision with the owner-driver and therefore the Insurance Company could not have been made liable.

2. The accident is said to have taken place while the insureds vehicle a Tata sumo car ran over the deceased who was a pedestrian and the accident is said to have taken place opposite the main road at Rajpura. The only eyewitness was one Sitar Mohd., who had a tea shop opposite the police post focal point, Rajpura.

3. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of the witness produced by the claimant to find that the insurers vehicle had been involved in the accident. It was a case where no FIR had been lodged and there was no other evidence to anchor than the statement of Sitar Mohd. to affirm whether the accident had taken place and whether the insureds vehicle had been involved in the accident. Finding there was the evidence of PW1, the Court went on to notice that a FIR, which had been lodged, referred t