UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. PINKI WALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Insurance Company is challenging the award of the Tribunal. The claim petition was filed by the widow and daughter of deceased Ajit Singh who died in the motor accident.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argued that there was a collusion between the respondents-claimants and the driver and owner of the vehicle. According to the learned Counsel, the vehicle number mentioned in the FIR is 640 while the vehicle number insured with the appellant is 040. Only because of the vehicle number being differently recorded in the FIR, the evidence of the respondents-claimants cannot be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the witnesses have deposed regarding the number of the vehicle being 040 and not 640. Even then it has to be seen that the FIR has been lodged on the first information and that has to be by one person only and not by more than one. In such a case, it will not be proper to throw out the evidence only because of the wrong number mentioned in the FIR. Moreover, the vehicle involved in the accident is a Matador. We questioned the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether any evidence has been placed on record to show that vehicle number 640 is also a Matador. He replied that no such evidence is led. The Tribunal after considering the evidence, held that the vehicle involved is 'Matador' bearing No. 040 and we do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding interest at the rate of 12% per annum. He has relied on the case of Kaushnuma Begum and others v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in 2001 ACJ 428. It has been observed by their Lordships as under :-