UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SARITA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the award dtd. 2/7/2022 vide which the claim petition filed by the Respondents/claimants under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed and the amount of compensation has been awarded in the following manner:-

(2.) Counsel for the Appellant/insurance company has challenged the finding of Issue No.1 with regard to the finding that the involvement of the vehicle bearing registration No.PB65-AQ-6000, is proved.

(3.) Counsel for the Appellant has argued that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the fact that there is no direct evidence that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No.1 Jagwinder Singh/driver of Tipper No.PB65-AQ-6000. It is further submitted that the FIR was registered against an unknown person by the father of the deceased by stating that he has received a call from a co-worker regarding the accident and therefore, the father of the deceased was not an eye-witness. It is also submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the statement of AW-2 Parminder Singh, who claimed himself to be an eye-witness of the accident as his name is not mentioned in the FIR.