Claimants failed to prove their relationship with the deceased and fabricated evidence, leading to the dismissal of the compensation claim.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award passed in Claim Petition No. 1247 of 2012 dated 28/09/2021 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur. The claim petition was allowed.

2. Claim :

(i) It is contended that petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner Nos.2 & 3 are brothers of deceased Salman Jahir Khan, who died in the vehicular accident dated 14/08/2013.

(ii) The petitioners contended that on 14/08/2013, Salman Khan was riding a motorcycle bearing No.MH-31-DT-0279 on Bhandara Road and when he reached at Mehta Petrol Pump, near Police Station Lakadganj, Nagpur, a truck bearing No.MH-40-Y- 8686 came in a high speed from opposite direction and collided with motorcycle of Salman Khan. The truck driver was driving rashly and negligently. Therefore the accident occurred. As a result of accident, Salman died on the spot. An inquest was drawn up. Post-mortem was conducted.

(iii) A Crime No.256 of 2013 was registered against the driver of the said truck under Section 279, 304(A) & 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short IPC).

(iv) The petitioners further contended that deceased Salman was a driver. He was sole breadwinner of his family. He was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. The petitioners were depending on his income. They have suffered a huge financial loss due to his untimely demise. Therefore, they have claimed compensation of Rs.13,96,000/- against the owner and the insurance company of the offending truck respondent Nos.1 & 2.

3. Defence :

(i) The insurance company – respondent No.2 contested the claim and denied the material contentions raised in the claim petition, particularly name, age, occupation and income of deceased Salman. (ii) It is contended that the petitioners have filed false claim by fabricating documents not disclosing the name of the employer of Salman and nature of his employment. It is denied that the offending truck was owned by respondent No.1 and the accident occurred with it. The owner of the said motorcycle has not been made party to the petition. He is a necessary party. Further more, it is stated that Salman was not having a valid driving license to drive it. The insurance company, lastly prayed for the dismissal of the application.

4. The learned tribunal framed following issues:

(1) Whether the driver of the Truck bearing No. MH-40-Y-8686 was driving it rashly and negligently ?

(2) Whether by such driving, said Truck dashed the Hero Honda Splendor Motorcycle of the deceased and caused his death ?

(3) Whether deceased was aged about 26 years and was earning Rs.9,000/- per month ?

(4) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

(5) Whether there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy?

(6) To what compensation, petitioners are entitled ?

(7) What order ?

5. The learned tribunal, after framing issues, held that the respondent Nos.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,49,000/- to the claimants.

6. The learned advocate for the appellant – the Insurance company, during the argument submitted that this is a false claim made by the respondent Nos.1 to 3. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal had not considered the cross-examination of the claimant Khairun (AW-1), in which she had given evasive answers. The name of the deceased, as mentioned in the post-mortem report at Exhibit-33 is doubtful that Salman Khan Zahir Khan @ Jasvant Yadav, resident of Bharat Nagar Kalamana, Nagpur. The inquest panchnama dated 15/03/2013 also discloses similar two names. She submitted that there is no any explanation on the part of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 as to why there are two names of one person. The petitioners failed to produce relevant documents to establish their relationship with the deceased and they are not dependents. She further pointed out that this is a false case. It is lastly prayed to allow the appeal and set aside impugned judgment.

7. The learned advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3