JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company against the award dated 02.05.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Motor Accident Claim Application Case No. 326/2008.

2. The respondent-claimants preferred a claim petition seeking grant of compensation on account of death of Ratanlal who died in a accident which took place on 28.02.2008, on various grounds before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh. The reply was filed on behalf of the appellant-insurance company as well as the respondents/non-claimants (Driver & Owner of the offending Car) denying the allegations in the claim petition. Thereafter, on completion of the pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the issues.

3. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal decided the claim petition of the respondents/claimants and awarded a sum of Rs. 5,91,500/- in favour of the respondents/claimants and directed the appellant as well as respondents/non-claimants to pay an interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of filing of the claim petition.

4. With the consent of the parties, the matter is being decided finally.

5. Heard.

6. In the present case, the factum of accident with insured vehicle has been disputed.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal fell into error while considering the fact that the accident took place by the insured vehicle RJ-09C-5412. He further submits that immediately after the accident, the FIR was registered in which the number of vehicle was stated to be RJ-09C-5254. He further submits that in order to get the compensation, the number of the offending vehicle has been changed. He submits that the original number of vehicle which was initially involved in the accident was changed when the charge-sheet was filed by the police, after the investigation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant while taking this Court to the evidence recorded by the learned Tribunal particularly the cross-examination of AW-4 (Gajraj Singh) who was the Investigating Officer of the Criminal Case, has submitted that the requisite information with respect to the Indica Car No. RJ-09C-5412 was not specifically obtained by him during the course of investigation from the RTO. He further submits that when the FIR was lodged by one Jamil Khan who stated the number of the offending vehicle being RJ-09C-5254 has not been produced in the witness box before the Tribunal and, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the number of the vehicle stated to be given by Jamil Khan in the First Information Report. He further submits that in the cross-examination of AW-3 Yashwant Singh, he has also stated that Jamil has submitted the First Information Report in his presence and the number of the car was also stated by him of the vehicle, which was involved in the accident.

9. On the strength of these arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that just to get compensation from the Insurance Company the present vehicle has been involved which is insured by the appellant.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Tribunal has correctly evaluated the testimony of eyewitness in the shape of AW-3 Yashwant Singh who has categorically stated that while he was driving the motor-cycle, he was following Ratanlal just at a distance about 20 feet and he saw the accident. After the accident, he took Ratanlal to the hospital in the same Indica Car (RJ-09C-5412) which collided with the motorcycle driven by Ratanlal. The Investigating Officer of the Criminal Case (AW-4 Gajraj Singh) has also deposed before the learned Tribunal that his investigating also revealed the involvement of the Indica Car No. RJ-09C-5412 in the present case. The counsel for the respondents further submits that the Tribunal after proper appreciation of the evidence on record has correctly come to the conclusion that the veh