S. S. Nijjar, J.

1. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and perused the paper-book.

2. Mr. Suri has vehemently argued that in this case, claimants have played a fraud. In fact the vehicle which was insured with the appellant was not involved in the accident. It is also argued that although the appellant was permitted to defend the proceedings, yet the M. A. C. T. has illegally closed the evidence of the appellant. Even bailable warrants were issued for the production of the witnesses. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held liable for not producing the entire evidence.

3. We have considered the submissions made by Mr. Suri. We are of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to appellant. A perusal of the award shows that the deceased met with an accident on 26.11.1998 at about 7.30 p. m. The offending vehicle was stated to be truck bearing no. PB 12-A 4552, which is alleged to have come from behind the scooter of the deceased at a very high speed and struck against the scooter on which the deceased was riding. The accident was witnessed by one Gurdev Singh, son of Niranjan Singh. The appellant had taken up a preliminary objection that t