to identify the person who was riding the motorcycle. In his further statement made on 13th November, 2014 (Exhibit P34), PW3 has stated that he came to know about the rider and the pillion rider, so also the number of the motorcycle, but, he has not mentioned the source of information. PW2-Investigation Officer in his deposition, has stated that after the case has been registered by the PSI, he had taken charge on 11th November, 2014 and visited Yelahanka Government Hospital in connection with post-mortem. He has further deposed that, based on the further statement made by the claimant on 13th November, 2014 with regard to details of the motorcycle, he directed his staff to collect information about the same from the concerned RTO. Whereas, in his cross-examination, he admits that he came to know about the registration number of the vehicle from the further statement made by PW3 on 22nd November, 2014. Though as per PW3 who is said to be the eyewitness to the incident, had given vehicle details to the Police, but, the Investigation Officer had issued notice to owner of the vehicle on 22nd November, 2014 after a gap of nine days, which delay is not explained properly by the claimants before the Tribunal. There are many contradictions in the statement made by claimant and evidence adduced by the witnesses, which has been rightly
