The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) erred in dismissing the claim petition solely on the basis of suspicion and without properly appreciating the evidence on record, including the police investigation report and the statements of witnesses.

1. - Heard the appeal finally with the consent of the parties.

2. The instant civil misc. appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against order of the MACT, Dholpur 5.2.2009 passed in claim petition No. 280/2006.

3. The brief facts as has been gathered on the basis of arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties as also the impugned order is that on 5.2.2009 when Hotam Singh was going on his motorcycle from his village to Dholpur and at that time near Tivariya Bhilganva a vehicle Tempo bearing No. R.J.11/RA. 0035 (old No. M.R 07/T- 4087), which was coming from Dholpur side in a rash and negligent manner hit the vehicle of Hotam 1 Singh and on account of which Hotam Singh received severe and grievous injuries and died on the spot and the motorcycle was also badly damaged. It is claimed by the claimants/appellants that Hotam Singh was 28 years of age and was a driver and was earning an income of Rs. 5000/- per month. The claim was accordingly lodged amounting to Rs. 11,00,000/- against respondent No. 1 Insurance Company and Santosh Kumar Sharma owner of the Tempo. On behalf of respondents reply was filed and the Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence and there was breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy. On behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle it was submitted that since the vehicle Tempo was insured by the respondent No.1, there was valid licence, therefore, in so far as the compensation is concerned, the responsibility would be on the Insurance Company.

4. The Tribunal framed five issues and after considering the Issue No. 1, disbelieved the version of the claimants/appellants mainly in view of the fact that there was no eye-witness and that in the FIR, number of the vehicle was not mentioned by the person lodging the FIR. The Tribunal was also of the view that Rajwati wife of the decessed was not an eye-witness and even disbelieved the version of A.D. 2 Bhim Singh and A.D. 3 Mohar Singh and on account of suspicion disbelieved the version of the claimants/appellants that the vehicle Tempo bearing No. R.J.11/RA. 0035 was duly involved in the accident. Since the Tribunal disbelieved the version in Issue No. 1, therefore, it did not proceed to decide the other issues. Hence this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the order of the Tribunal is perverse, unjust and based on suspicion, the claim has been disbelieved. He further contended that the accident occurred in the late evening in September, 2006 and immediately thereafter the family members certainly would carry the injured to the nearest hospital the first priority of the family members and other persons would be to take the injured to a nearby hospital for proper treatment rather than noticing the vehicle number of filing of FIR then and there. He further submitted that the brother of the decessed Ram Bharosi lodged FIR on 6.9.2006 at about 12 Noon and the post-mortem was also conducted on 6th September, 2006 at about 9.00 a.m. in the post-mortem report the doctor opined that "in my opinion this person died due to crush injury to forehead of skull causing laceration of brain leading to shock and death". He further i contended that as aforesaid an FIR was lodged and thereafter regular challan was also filed against the driver and once an FIR was lodged and thereafter regular challan was also filed against the driver and thereafter the police after investigation has filed a challan against the said vehicle then the Tribunal merely on suspicion not ought to have disbelieved the version. Certainly, information was received by nearby surrounding passengers about vehicle number and they conveyed it to police and thereafter on investigation it was found that the Tempo was involved in the accident. Accordingly, he submitted that the order of the Tribunal deserves to be reversed, be set aside and matter is required to be restored back to be decided on me