NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY Vs. MUKESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Allowed as prayed for. Affidavits of PW2 and PW3 are taken on record subject to just exceptions Main case The present appeal directs challenge against award dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palwal (in short, 'the Tribunal') whereby compensation has been awarded on account of death of Partap Singh son of Prahlad Singh in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 19.02.2017.

(2.) Counsel for the appellant-insurance company would inform that the appeal has been filed only to assail findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 attributing rash and negligent driving to Ram Swaroop, driver of Eicher Canter bearing No. HR 73-A-6689 insured with the appellant insurance company. It is argued that the occurrence took place on 19.02.2017 at about 9.00 pm. Bishamber, brother of the deceased lodged FIR No. 165 dated 23.02.2017 at Police Station Sadar Palwal against an unknown vehicle and driver. It is vehemently argued that the vehicle in question was planted later in collusion with the driver and owner thereof with a clear intent to extract compensation from the insurance company. In addition, it is argued that testimony of Rajbir, an alleged eye witness to the occurrence is not worthy of credence and reliance as he neither shifted the injured to the hospital nor reported the matter to the police or recorded his statement during investigation of the aforesaid FIR lodged at the behest of brother of the deceased. It is further argued that Rajbir has been introduced later to support cause of the claimants with regard to accident being the result of rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the appellant and perused the paper book particularly the award impugned.