The injured-eye witness's testimony was sufficient to prove the negligence of the driver, and the delay in lodging the FIR was not a valid ground to reject the claim petition.

JUDGMENT

1. Both the appeals arise out of common judgment and award, hence the same are being decided together.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 02.05.2017 passed by the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur, District Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No.379/2014 (101/10) by which claim petition filed by the claimant (now deceased) has been allowed and the Insurance Company has been directed to pay a compensation of Rs.6,95,533/- to the claimant along with interest @ 9 % per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the claim petition.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company has submitted the appeal No.3686/2017 before this Court on the ground that there is a delay of one day in lodging the FIR and no eye witness of the incident was examined, hence, the claimant has failed to prove the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Minu B. Mehta & anr. vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan & anr. reported in 1977, ACJ 118, Sunit & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. reported in MACD 2019(1) (SC) 42 and the judgment of this Court in the case of Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Badami & ors. in SB Civil Misc. Appeal No.1148/2018.

4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Badami Devi (supra) was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hon'ble Apex Court while dismissing the appeal, upheld the judgment passed by this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that since the claimant expired during pendency of this appeal, hence, the appeal stands abated and the legal representatives of the injured are not entitled to claim any enhanced compensation. Counsel submitted that at the most legal representatives of the deceased are entitled to get loss of estate of the injured till her date of death. Counsel further submitted that the accident occurred in the year 2009, while the claimant produced her disability certificate showing her disability as 100% in the year 2015. The genuineness of the certificate is doubtful. Since there was delay in recording the evidence of the claimant and producing the permanent disability certificate on record, hence, the claimants are not entitled to get the benefit of interest for the purpose of delay caused by the claimant herself. Lastly, counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the driver and owner of the vehicle did not appear in the witness box and they also did not produce the fitness certificate and permit of the vehicle, hence, there was breach of policy and the Insurance Company is not liable to make the payment of compensation. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. reported in MACD 2018(3) (SC) 202. Learned counsel further submitted that in the aforesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the driver and owner of the vehicle.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the driver and owner of the vehicle submitted that the vehicle in question was fully insured and no steps were taken by the Insurance Company to produce the relevant documents on record and the Tribunal has considered these facts by turning down the objection taken by the Insurance Company. Hence, the driver and owner of the vehicle are not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was fully insured.

7. Learned counsel for the claimants opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the insurance company and submitted that the claimant was injured and only eye witness