The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of estoppel to hold the Insurance Company liable and the use of the National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi judgment to determine the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT

R.G. Avachat, J. - This is Insurance Company's appeal, challenging the judgment and award dated 11/10/2005, passed by Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalgaon in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 495/2001. Under the impugned judgment and award, a sum of Rs. 4,12,500/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. has been awarded as compensation on account of death in a vehicular accident.

2. Facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as follows:-

Late Dilip @ Ravi was the son of claimant. He was 27 years of age. The deceased was working as Hamal. It so happened that, on 25/11/2019, the deceased Dilip along with his cousin namely Shrawan was on his way on motorbike bearing No. MH-19/F-1363. While they were proceeding along Mumbai-Agra Road within the limits of Malegaon, a truck bearing No. MH-18/E-7618 (No. MH-18/A-7618) knocked them down. As a result, Dilip suffered multiple injuries and succumbed thereto. His father, therefore, filed the claim petition for compensation.

3. The Tribunal assumed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs. 3000/- per month and granted compensation as stated above.

4. Heard. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that, the truck involved in the accident was bearing Registration No. MH-18/A-7618. The very number had been figured in the F.I.R. and scene of accident panchanama. All of a sudden, the said number came to be changed to No. MH-18/E-7618. The number might have been replaced only with a view to earn compensation from the appellant Insurance Company since the truck bearing No. MH-18/E-7618 had an insurance cover granted by the appellant Insurance Company. Learned counsel would further submit that, the investigating officer has not been examined to shed light on this aspect of the matter. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Nepal Singh Vs. Upender Singh [(2008) 7 SCC 334].

5. On the question of quantum of compensation, learned counsel would submit that, the accident dates back to the year 1999. The deceased was a Hamal. There was no concrete evidence as regards to income of the deceased. The Tribunal, therefore, ought to have considered it at Rs. 50/- per day. According to learned counsel, the amount of compensation awarded is very much on higher side. He, therefore, urged for allowing the appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 - claimant would, on the other hand, submit that, it was a mistake in recording the truck number in police papers. The investigating officer has duly rectified it. No other person had come forward to claim ownership of the said vehicle. The petition was accordingly amended. The amendment relates back to the date of filing of the petition. The appellant Insurance Company, therefore, could not have a quarrel over number of the vehicle since one and the same was involved in the accident.

7. On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned counsel would submit that, the deceased was the sole bread winner of the family. The Tribunal has rightly quantified the amount of compensation. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.

8. It is true that, deceased Dilip died in an accident involving motorbike bearing No. MH-19/F-1363 and the truck on 25/11/1999. The question is whether it was a truck bearing No. MH-18/A-7618. Admittedly, the truck No. MH-18/E-7618 had an insurance cover granted by the appellant Insurance Company. If it is held that the said truck was not involved in the accident, but it was MH-18/A-7618, then the appellant Insurance Company would not have a liability to pay compensation.

9. The record indicates that, the investigating officer made corrections in the police papers changing the number of the truck from No. MH-18/A-7618 to No. MH-18/E-7618. Without going into the factual matrix in the record, suffice it to say that, in the said accident, two persons lost their lives. One is Dilip and second one is Dilip's cousin Shrawan. The record indicates tha