UNION OF INDIA Vs. MADAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/non-claimants against the Judgment and Award dated 02.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer in M.A.C. Case No. 04/2014 whereby an amount of Rs. 9,67,955/- was awarded as compensation in favour of the respondents-claimants on account of death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu in the accident which occurred on 20.08.2013.

(2.) Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the counsel for the parties partly allowed the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants awarding a total sum of Rs. 9,67,955/- in their favour.

(3.) Mr. Indra Raj Choudhary, learned counsel for the Union of India has vehemently submitted that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are incorrect. He further submits that in fact, no accident occurred with the vehicle of the appellants. In fact, the death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu was caused due to motor-cycle having been overrun on the divider and therefore, the truck of the appellants was falsely implicated in the present case just to claim the compensation. He further submits that even as per the site plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation conducted in the criminal case, it has come on record that there were no signs of the accident at the place of accident shown in the site plan. There were no bloodstains present on the place where the accident had taken place. Learned counsel emphatically submitted that even on the vehicle of the appellant there were no dent, no damage or scratch marks present. Therefore, it can safely be presumed that the army truck was not involved in the accident at all. He also submits that as per the memo of appearance of the death of Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu (Ex.P/5), no injury marks were present on the body of the deceased. The postmortem of the body of the deceased Smt. Bhanwari @ Madu was not conducted just to avoid the true story of the accident. On the strength of the submissions made, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 is incorrect.