R.S.Garg, J.

( 1. ) The appellant Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 10.10.2006 passed by Shri I.S.Shrivastava Member MACT Indore in Claim Case No. 144/2005 awarding a sum of Rs. 5,47,000/-as compensation in favour of respondent No. 1 to 6 has filed this appeal.

( 2. ) The short facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are, that, a FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged by one Salim Khan at Police Station Dewas informing the Police that while he was going towards Dewas on a Motorcycle a Truck bearing Registration No. U.P.-80/S-9912 had hit another Motorcycle as a result of which the Motorcyclist fell. It was found that the Motorcyclist died on the spot. Thereafter the complainant chased the Truck but the driver of the truck could avoid his apprehension.

( 3. ) On the basis of this FIR the Police reached the spot prepared certain Panchnamas and also recorded the statements of number of the persons. On completion of the investigation, the Police filed challan with a submission that Truck No. U.P. 80/S-9912 was not involved in the accident but in fact Bus No. M.P.09-S/1732 was involved in the accident. The respondent No.1 to 6/ original claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/-with a submission that Bus No. M.P.09-S/1732 was involved in the accident. It was submitted that non-claimant No. 1 and 2 were the driver and the owner of the bus while the bus was insured with the present appellant/non-claimant No.3. Notices were issued to the parties but the owner and the driver did not appear in the Court. It appears that the present appellant Insurance Company made an application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking permission to defend the claim on all possible grounds which were even available to the driver/owner of the bus. Undisputedly the application was allowed and as the owner and the driver were ex-parte, the Court granted permission in favour of the Insurance Company to contest the claim petition on all grounds.

( 4. ) From the side of the claimant Setubai (P.W. 1) widow of the deceased, Hukum Khati (P.W.2) an alleged witness, Tarun Bansal (P.W.3) the employer of the deceased and Rajusingh (P.W.4) son of the deceased were examined.

They were, allowed to be cross-examined. Number of documents were filed by the original claimants in support of their claim. However, the present appellant Insurance Company did not produce any witness nor did produce any document in support of their defence. The learned Trial Court after hearing the parties held that Truck No. U.P.80-S/9912 was not involved in the accident but in fact the bus driven and owned by the respondent No. 1 and 2 was involved in the accident. After holding that the bus No. M.P.09-S/1792 was involved in the accident, the learned Court below awarded a sum of Rs. 5,47,000/-in favour of the original claimants/respondents No. 1 to 6. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the said award has filed this appeal.

( 5. ) Shri Baheti learned Counsel for the appellant after taking us through the evidence and the documents filed by the other side submitted that the Court below erred in holding that the bus No. M.P.09-S/1732 was involved in the accident. It is submitted by him that it was for the claimants to show and prove before the Court that under what circumstances involvement of Truck No. U.P.80-S/9912 was shown in the FIR. It is also submitted by him that the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the claimants did not even plead that the truck was not involved in the accident but the accident was caused because of rash and negligent driving of the bus. It is also submitted by him that the learned Court below erred in holding that because a challan has been filed by the Investigating Agency against the driver of Bus No. M.P.09-S/1732, therefore, involvement of the bus in the accident was sure and certain. It is submitted by him that the fo