The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on evidence to establish the involvement of the offending truck in the accident, the contributory negligence of the deceased, and the assessment of compensation based on settled parameters.

JUDGMENT

Vinay Joshi, J. - Heard.

2. admit.

3. By consent of both the learned counsel heard fnally.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 4.8.2018 passed in Motor accident Claims Petition No. 82 of 2015 by the learned Member Motor accident Claims Tribunal, Shrirampur, (3) Judgment F .a. 2728-2021 District ahmednagar, this appeal is preferred by the insurance company.

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the legal heirs of deceased Sharad Tanpure have applied to the Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of death of Sharad in vehicular accident dated 29.01.2015. It was the case of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (claimants) that while deceased Sharad was proceeding by riding on a motorcycle, ofending vehicle namely truck bearing Registration No. MH-17-T-5150 gave a forceful dash from behind to the motorcycle, resulting into the death of Sharad. The ofending vehicle was owned by respondent No.7 Babasaheb, whilst it was driven by respondent No.6 Vijay Giri and was insured with the appellant company. The Tribunal held that since the deceased was not wearing Helmet at the time of accident, he had contributed negligence to the extent of 20% and rest negligence was on the part of the truck driver. On the basis of evidence adduced on the point of income of deceased, Tribunal by following settled norms has assessed compensation and on reducing 20% thereof has awarded total compensation to the tune of Rs. 29, 44,119/- along with future interest.

6. In appeal, insurer took various defences. It is argued that the Tribunal seriously erred in holding that the truck driver was negligent to the extent of 80%. according to insurer, the claimants have not established the involvement of ofending truck in the accident. Besides that, some other grounds afecting the fgure of compensation have been raised.

7. The initial submission is about non-involvement of ofending truck and in the alternative, about the extent of negligence fxed by the Tribunal. It is argued that though the accident took place on 29.01.2015, however, the F.I.R was belatedly lodged on 06.02.2015 and therefore, involvement of ofending truck is doubtful. It is canvassed that the claimants in collusion with owner and driver of the truck, have falsely shown involvement of ofending truck. True, the F.I.R has been lodged after seven days of occurrence but that cannot be a decisive factor. The claimant-widow led evidence on afdavit, wherein she stated that at the relevant time ofending truck bearing Registration No. MH-17-T-5150 gave a dash to the motorcyclist from behind. The claimant has examined (PW-3) police head constable Chavan, who has investigated the crime. It is his evidence that after accident, he has investigated the matter in which he found the involvement of the ofending truck on which he obtained information of owner from the ofce of Regional Transport Ofce and then seided the truck. Precisely, investigating ofcer has stated about the involvement of the ofending truck. Besides that, the claimants have examined witness Bapusaheb Gore, who claims to be an eye-witness to the accident. It is his evidence that at the relevant time the ofending truck bearing registration No. MH-17-T-5150 came in a high speed and gave a dash to the motorcycle. The truck driver remained on the spot for some time but then fed. It is his evidence that he has followed the truck and noted registration number. These, two witnesses have stated about the involvement of Truck, however there is nothing to discard their testimonies.

8. While challenging involvement of ofending vehicle the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of anil and Others Versus New India assurance Co. Ltd and Others 2018(1) T.a.C. 355 (S.C.). True in said case, involvement of ofending truck was denied, however, the case is distinguishable on facts. In said case, there was delay of more than (6) Judgment F .a. 2728-2021 one month in lodging FIR. The deceased was the brother of the owner of ofending