UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SALIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging the award dtd. 12/2/2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, the Tribunal) whereby an amount of Rs.18,78,600.00 has been awarded to the respondents-claimants on account of death of Taleeb @ Tamil.

(2.) The brief facts, as mentioned in the award are that on 1/11/2018 Yakub Ali and the deceased Taleeb @ Tamil had gone to Pinjore for sale of rings and stones. When they were returning on their motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-75B-2625 then at about 1.50 PM their motorcycle was hit by a car make Toofan @ Cruiser bearing registration No. HR-56-6700, which came from the side of Shambu barrier. The said vehicle was being driven by the driver rashly and negligently. Due to impact of collision, the deceased fell down on the road and he suffered multiple grievous injuries. Taleeb @ Tamil was got shifted to hospital at Rajpura where he was declared brought dead. With these allegations, FIR No.131 dtd. 2/11/2018 was registered under Ss. 279, 337, 304-A and 427 IPC at Police Station Shambu. On these facts, the claim petition involved in the present appeal was also filed; claiming therein that the deceased was 28 years of age. He had been earning Rs.40,000.00 per month by sale of rings and stones. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.50.00 Lakhs was claimed as compensation. In that petition, the above said amount of compensation was awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, the insurance company is in the present appeal.

(3.) Solitary argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the claim petition was collusive in nature. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the documents led in evidence before the Tribunal, which are the copies of the FIRs registered in other accident cases; where one Kesar Singh was consistently involved either as owner or driver of the vehicle involved in alleged accidents in those of the cases. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that Kesar Singh had been habitual of fabricating collusive accident cases so as to get compensation for the claimants; for a consideration for himself. To connect the said Kesar Singh to the present case, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case also the driver and the owner of the vehicle involved in the case were produced before the police by none other than Kesar Singh. Hence, the collusion in filing the claim petition has to be presumed by the Court. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the testimony of the alleged eye witness Yakub Ali as well as testimony of above said Kesar Singh, who was produced as RW-1 by the insurance company. Referring to their statements, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the eye witness has failed to produce the medical record showing injuries to him, although, he had asserted the injuries to himself in the alleged accident. This shows that he was not an eye witness. Still further, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that Kesar Singh had admitted before the Tribunal as having been involved in the FIRs which have been placed on record in the present case. Hence, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation; because the claim petition was collusive in nature.