Electronic evidence disproving insurance policy requires mandatory Sec.65B(4) certificate; absent it, insurer liable despite fake policy claim. Minor pedestrian's polytrauma compensation (medical, pain, diet, conveyance) upheld as reasonable.

JUDGMENT :

AARTI SATHE, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and award dated 12^th April 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment and award”) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “MACT”) whereby the Respondent No.1 Claimant has been awarded an amount of Rs. 76,611/- including No-Fault Liability (NFL) amount if any along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of MACT application till its realization.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: -

i. On 30^th December 2009, at about 07:10 a.m., Respondent No.1 Claimant who was then a child of 12 years, was walking by the side of Dr. B.A. Road, Mumbai, when a speeding motor taxi bearing MH-01-X-4050 (hereinafter referred to as “offending vehicle”) knocked him down. Respondent No.1 Claimant sustained injuries, and it is the contention of Respondent No.1 Claimant, that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle is owned by Respondent No.2, one Mr. Kalpanath Hariharanayan Mishra.

ii. The Respondent No.1 Claimant was required to spend considerable amount for treatment, and it is his contention that he lost one academic year because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is also his contention that the disability sustained by him due to the injuries caused by the accident, affected the prospects of his future earnings. An FIR bearing no. 332 of 2009, was filed before the Bhoiwada Police Station on the basis of complaint made by Respondent No.1, Claimant’s Father, who was not a witness to the accident. Consequently, Respondent No.1 Claimant filed an application bearing no. 547 of 2010 before the MACT claiming compensation amount towards the injuries faced by the Respondent No.1 Claimant on account of the accident.

iii. The impugned judgment and award were passed in the aforesaid application in favour of Respondent No.1 Claimant, awarding a sum of Rs. 76,611/- including NFL, if any, along with interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application before the MACT till its realization. By the impugned judgment and award, the Appellant Company and Respondent No.2 were jointly and severally made liable to make the payment of the aforesaid amount.

3. It is in the backdrop of the above facts that I proceed to decide the present appeal.

4. Learned Counsel Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni along with Ms. Sweta Singh appeared on behalf of the Appellant Company. Learned counsel Ms. Varsha Chavan appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 Claimant.

5. Heard learned counsel on behalf of the parties. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant Company submitted that the impugned judgment and award have been passed without appreciating the facts and the quantum of compensation which has been awarded by way of the aforesaid impugned judgment and award is excessive and arbitrary. The submissions made by learned counsel for the Appellant Company are summarized as follows:

i) It was contended that the impugned judgment, and award has erroneously held that the Respondent No.1 Claimant was entitled to Rs. 76,611/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum without appreciating the fact that the insurance policy itself was fake and bogus and that the Appellant Company had led evidence to prove the same.

ii) It was further contended that the MACT had erred in rejecting the computer printouts of the premium register which was subm