Rajiv Roy, J.—Heard Mr. Amrendra Narayan Rai, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on behalf of the respondents.

The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.3.2016 passed in Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 27 of 2009 by 4th Additional District Judge cum Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Khagaria by which the claim of the claimants-respondent 1st set (respondent Nos. 1 to 8) was allowed with a direction to the appellant herein to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months.

2. The Matrix of facts leading to the present case is/are as follows:—

3. On 6.6.2009, Birju Yadav, deceased, was driving the passenger Jeep bearing registration No. BRI-8753 and the said vehicle was moving from Khagaria Railway Station to Begusarai on NH-31. However, near Kallar Tola, a Sumo vehicle bearing registration No. BR-34C-001 which was moving in a very dangerous manner came from opposite side (Begusarai) and dashed against the said Jeep resulting into serious injuries to Birju Yadav and a co-passenger, a lady who succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. Birju Yadav was taken to the Khagaria Hospital, where he too died. Accordingly, Khagaria Muffasil P.S. Case No. 234 of 2009 was registered amongst other under Section 379 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the Sumo vehicle.

4. The respondent-1st set thereafter preferred claim application on 9.9.2009 for compensation amount of Rs. 3 lakh with interest.

5. The opposite parties, the appellant herein, the owner of the Sumo vehicle, appeared and submitted amongst other the insurance policy of M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited, Khagaria stating that the vehicle is insured with the said Insurance Company.

6. ‘The Insurance Company’ preferred exoneration petition on 8.9.2011 stating that the insurance policy submitted by the opposite party-appellant herein is a fake one and no such policy was ever issued by the Company and as such, they are not liable to pay in the matter.

7. The Motor Vehicle Claim Case No. 27 of 2009 was thereafter taken up by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Khagaria, (henceforth for short ‘the Tribunal’), the issues were framed and accordingly the learned Tribunal passed the order vide order dated 30.3.2016 and recorded as follows:—

ISSUES

1. Is the claim application as framed is maintainable?

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation as prayed for and if so to what extent and from whom?

3. To what other relief or reliefs the claimants are entitled?

8. Now it is to be seen whether the claimants have established their case for compensation?

Findings:—

9. In order to establish their case the claimants has examined 3 witnesses in the case namely C.W.1, Ganesh Yadav, C.W.2, Janardan Yadav and C.W.3, Yadav.

Besides oral evidence the claimants have also adduced some documentary evidence in this case, Ext. 1 is formal FIR and fardbeyan of the informant Ext. 2 photocopy of the p.m. report of the deceased Birju Yadav, Ext. 3 Policy paper of the offending certificate of offending vehicle and Ext. 5 is charge-sheet of Muffassil P.S. Case No. 224 of 2009.

10. The O.P.No. 1 and 2 have also adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in this case.

11. As regards oral evidence on behalf of O.P. No. 1, one witness namely Karishma Kumari has been examined who happens to be working as Legal Executive in Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. Photocopy of Policy paper bearing No. 0G 09 2116 180300005318 has been produced as documentary evidence which is Ext. A of this case.

12. O.P. No. 3 has also adduced one witness in this case namely, Ashok Roy.

13. Now I proceed to scan and scrutinize the evidence so far available on the record issuewise and in this connection I first take up Issue No. 2.

Issue No. II:

14. As per claim petition, it appears that the claimants have sought compensation from O.P. No. 1 and 2 which are Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd. As per claimant the offending vehicle No. BR 34C-0001 was insu