The duty of the judicial officers to pursue the truth and the power of a Civil Court to summon a court witness if the ends of justice require it.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and Award dated 06-02-2015 passed by the learned Chairman of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Beed in M.A.C.P. No. 166 of 2013, thereby dismissing the claim petition, the original claimants have preferred this appeal.

2. Heard learned Advocates for the parties.

3. The appellants are original claimants. They are children and mother of deceased Mahebub Chand Shaikh. Respondent No.1 is owner, respondent No.2 is driver and respondent No.3 is the insurance company, whereas, respondent No.4 was previous owner of the offending vehicle. According to the claimants, deceased Mahebub, on 26-02-2013 on 9.00 p.m., was proceeding on his bike bearing No. MH-23-L-3041 from Jamgaon to Ashti road. One Sunil Takale was pillion rider. When they reached near Khandoba temple at Redekar Vasti, there was collusion and dash in between two bikes, another bike bearing No. MH-16/P-1504 belonging to respondent No.1, driven by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3. It is alleged that respondent No.2 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and accident took place due to his rashness. The deceased and Sunil Takale have fallen on the road and sustained serious injuries. They were immediately shifted to Rural Hospital, Ashti, and thereafter, to City Care Hospital, Ahmednagar. But, on the next day the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The FIR (Exhibit-32) was lodged by Sunil Takale at Ashti Police Station on 05-03-2013. The Crime was registered vide C.R. No. 42 of 2013 against respondent No.2 driver of another bike. The claimants claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.5000/- per month and all of them were depending on him. He was working as Supervisor in Ashti Taluka Dudh Utpadak and Purwatha Sahkari Sangh Maryadit, Ashti, Dist. Beed. They calculated loss of income @ Rs.17,05,000/-, but restricted their claim to Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their written statement (Exhibit 22). They admitted that the accident involving vehicle of respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2, but, it was claimed that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased. They also claimed that the vehicle was duly insured with respondent No.3. Hence, the claim deserves to be dismissed against respondents No.1 and 2.

5. The respondent No.3 Insurance Company filed written statement (Exhibit-16) denying the various contentions of the claim petition. Respondent No.3 claimed that respondent No.2 was not holding valid and effective driving license. There was collusion between two vehicles. The owner and the insurance company of another bike bearing No. MH-23-L-3041 are necessary parties. So the claim should fail for non-joinder of necessary parties. The vehicle was not fit to ply on the road and not used for which it was registered. The accident and involvement of motorbike No. MH-16-P-1504 is denied as no one on this vehicle is injured. It appears that there is collusion between the claimants and owner of another vehicle. The liability of respondent No.3 is subject to terms and conditions of policy provided under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no addition liability can be fixed on this respondent. The compensation and interest claimed thereon is excessive, vague and not as per prevailing interest rate approved by the RBI.

6. The respondent No.4 erstwhile owner of alleged offending motorcycle was served with notice, however, he remained absent. The claim proceeded ex-parte against him.

7. The claimants examined claimant No.4 Manbee w/o. Chand Shaikh (Exhibit-28) and one witness Bapurao Yeshwant Malsekhare (Exhibit-41) on the point of income of deceased and relied on relevant copies of income (Exhibits-42,43) and police papers (Exhibits-32 to 38). Learned Tribunal dismissed the claim on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR and the