JUDGMENT :

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the present appeals are being heard and decided by this common order as both the appeals arise out of the same accident and common judgment.

2. The present appeals (one filed by Insurance Company and another filed by the claimant) have been filed against the judgment and award dated 03.10.2018 passed by learned Family Court, Banswara in Motor Accident Claims case No. 217/2017 (Old No. 471/2013) whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 7,88,453/- in favour of the claimant with an interest @ 9% p.a.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 07.03.2012 at around 07:30 pm, Suresh while traveling on motorcycle met with an accident was dashed by Motorcycle No. RJ 03 SJ 0322 coming from opposite direction. The said motorcycle was driven rashly and negligently by its rider. In the accident, claimant Suresh Chandra Daanger sustained multiple injuries and was taken to the hospital at Banswara from where he was taken to Baroda at Specialty Center.

4. In the circumstances, a claim petition was preferred. Learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties allowed the claim petition of the claimant vide its judgment and award dated 03.10.2018 and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,88,453/- as compensation to the claimant-appellant with an interest @ 9% p.a.

5. The counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has vehemently submitted that the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 is not correct. He further submits that the FIR was lodged on 10.03.2012 for the accident which occurred on 07.03.2012. In the FIR, the motorcycle which was insured with the appellant has been falsely implicated just for the purpose of getting compensation in the present case. It is also contended that there is no reasonable explanation for lodging the FIR after a delay of three days and thus, it can safely be presumed that the motorcycle insured with the appellant has been fixed for getting the compensation in this case. It is also contended that even as per the site plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation (Exp.2), it is clear that there was head on collusion between the two motorcycles. Therefore, the motorcycle insured with the appellant insurance company cannot be fastened with 100% liability to pay compensation in the present case. The counsel for the appellant has taken this court to the site plan prepared by the police during the course of investigation and empathetically submitted that the point of contributory negligence is very much available in the present case but the same has not been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal fell in error while awarding 100% compensation against the insurance company. The Counsel further submits that the amount awarded in the present case is also excessive as for six grievous injuries suffered by the Insured, a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in total has been awarded. It is further contended that 9% p.a. rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal on the amount of compensation is also excessive in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anthony Vs. the Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C. reported in 2020ACJ 1592, therefore, it is prayed that same may be reduced suitably.

6. Per contra, supporting the judgment passed by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the claimant-appellant submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 suffers from no infirmity in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ravi Vs Badri Narayan relied upon by the Tribunal. Merely delay in lodging the FIR will not defeat the claim preferred by the claimant before the Tribunal. It is also contended that the Tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the site map prepared by the police during the course of investigation and rightly concluded that there was complete negligence on the part of the Motorcycle i