ORDER :

1. The present is an Insurance Company’s appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. The appeal is filed with a delay of 32 days along with an application I.A. No.2, which is an application for condonation of delay.

3. On due consideration of the submissions made by the appellant and also considering the submission made by the counsel on I.A. No.2 a strong case for allowing the application has been made out. Accordingly, I.A. No.2 stands allowed. Delay of 32 days in filing the appeal stands condoned.

4. With the consent of the parties, the appeal was heard on admission, It is a case where an accident occurred on 29.08.2020 and as a result of the said accident the deceased Narsingh Mandavi aged around 30 years succumbed to the injuries suffered from the said accident. It is said that deceased was traveling on his motor cycle and when he had halted the motor cycle and was answering the call of the nature, a rash and negligent bolero jeep came and dashed the deceased causing grievous injuries resulting in his death later on 31.08.2020. The widow and the daughter of deceased have filed the claim application under Section 166. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on record have allowed the same by awarding a compensation of Rs.54,68,200/-. While passing the impugned award the tribunal also granted interest at the rate of 4% per annum and with penal clause that in case if the amount is not paid within a period of two months then the amount beyond a period of two months shall carry interest at the rate of 6% till its actually paid.

5. The appellant while assailing the impugned award has questioned firstly the involvement of vehicle. Secondly, the liability of the insurance company and thirdly the quantum of compensation awarded. As regards the involvement of a vehicle is concerned, contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that it is a case where perusal of the entire facts leads to much suspicions, as regards the occurrence of the accident itself by the offending vehicle. According to the counsel for the appellant it is a case where accident is said to have occurred on 29.08.2020 and the deceased having died on 31.08.2020 the FIR was lodged at a much belated stage on 20.10.2020 i.e. after about 52 days from the date of accident.

6. It is the further contention of the appellant that even the statement of the alleged eye witness Madvi Kosa AW-2 also gives rise to many suspicions. As regards the occurrence of accident and also as regards his having witnessed the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company referred to his statement so far as his ignorance to the number of vehicle at the time of accident and that he was subsequently informed by the Police Authorities as regards the vehicle number is concerned. Further, according to the appellant, the suspicion becomes stronger so far as deposition and statement of the eye witness Madvi Kosa AW-2 for the simple reason in spite of being an eye witness, he had not disclosed the involvement of the offending vehicle to any person till the FIR was lodged for the first time on 14.10.2020.

7. All said and done, what is reflected from the perusal of the impugned award is that on 29.08.2020 the deceased constable with the Chhattisgarh Police met with an accident. He was hospitalized and he succumbed to the injuries on 31.08.2020. Subsequently on 14.10.2020, the statement of AW-2 was recorded before the Police Authorities and it is thereafter that FIR was lodged on 20.10.2020. What is also admitted from the factual matrix of the case is that, based on the FIR, a final report was submitted and charge-sheet was also filed and respondent no.1 was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 & 304 A of the IPC and charge-sheet was also filed against him.

8. It is settled position of law that in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly, when the claim application arising out of an accident is to be decided, the standard of proof