ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANITA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 19.02.2018 passed in motor accident claim petition numbered as MACT No. 5723/2016. The challenge is on the ground that there was no eye witness to the fatal accident thus there is no blame or liability of the offending vehicle, which was insured by the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant refers to the DAR filed by the Investigating Officer and submits that the impugned order was passed merely on the basis of the Site-Plan but nothing was shown to the effect, that the alleged offending vehicle was involved in the accident or that it was due to negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. He also refers to the Inspection Report of the insured vehicle, wherein damages are shown to be on the front right side of the vehicle, whereas the damage to the motor-cycle, which the deceased was driving, was also on the front right side.

(2.) The learned Tribunal has dealt with the issue as under:

(3.) It is not in dispute that according to the site plan the offending vehicle was behind the motor-cycle, which the deceased was riding. In other words, the deceased could not have injured himself, all on his own, unless his motor-cycle was hit by another vehicle. The only vehicle in close proximity at the site was the insured offending vehicle. When the policeman reached the site, he found that the driver of the offending vehicle had fled from the site and a crushed motor-cycle was lying on the road ahead of the offending vehicle. The injured victim had been rushed to the hospital and succumbed to the injuries. The damage to the offending vehicle is on the front right side. The offending vehicle was an Eicher-Canter truck. The fact that it had an impact and damage on its front right side, including the headlights, is sufficient indication that it is this vehicle which impacted the vehicle ahead of it. The damage to the motor-cycle is not only on its right side but manifold.