(1.) Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same judgment and award dtd. 30/1/2018, hence they are being decided by this common order.
(2.) Brief facts of the appeals are that on dtd. 7/4/2014 the deceased Sakruddin @ Shakildudin was going from his house towards Mahwa Kheda to attend a marriage on motorcycle No.RJ-11-SD-7506. At about 7:00 PM, when the motor cycle reached near Lane Ka Pura ahead Purani Chawani, the said motor cycle was hit by Maruti Van No.RJ-11UA-0941. Resultantly, Sakruddin @ Shakildudin sustained injuries. He died on account of said injuries. FIR was lodged at P.S. Sadar Dholpur. Appellants Anisha and Ors. filed a claim petition under Ss. 140 and 166 of the M.V. Act. The learned tribunal after hearing both the parties, awarded Rs.12,04,000.00 as compensation alongwith interest @ 7% per annum in favour of the claimants.
(3.) Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that while passing the award dtd. 30/1/2018, learned tribunal miserably failed to appreciate the material available on record because alleged accident took place on 7/4/2014, whereas the present FIR was lodged on next day by the brother of the deceased against unknown vehicle. During investigation, the Maruti Van was falsely implicated. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that Investigating Officer recorded the statement of Puttu @ Pratap as the eye witness. The said witness was examined in the criminal trial in which he had not supported the prosecution case and denied that any accident took place before him. So, trial court acquitted the respondent No.6 for the offence under Ss. 279 and 304 A IPC. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Insurance Company had filed an application before the learned tribunal for giving time for producing the statement of Puttu @ Pratap and copy of the judgment of the trial court regarding acquittal but learned tribunal dismissed the application filed by the Insurance Company. So, order of the learned tribunal be set aside.