Point of Law: Tribunal is duty bound to critically analyse evidence produced before it.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 22.06.2022 whereby the claim petition preferred by the claimants has been allowed and an award for an amount of Rs. 8,58,212/- has been passed in their favour.

2. The case of the appellant-Insurance Company is that it was a specific case wherein the vehicle has falsely been implicated/implanted in the accident and in pursuance to the same, the award has wrongly been passed in favour of the claimants.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel Shri Vishal Singhal on behalf of appellant that at the first instance, the FIR qua the accident was registered against an unknown vehicle. Subsequently, a challan has been filed against the driver of the Motorcycle No. RJ-06-SN-3333 without any evidence pertaining to the fact that the said vehicle was involved in the said accident. Learned counsel submitted that it is an admitted case on record that no investigation by the police authorities regarding the accident in question was made. Further, the vehicle in question was not seized by the police but was surrendered by the insured himself in the police station and it is an admitted case that the vehicle was seized by the Investigating Officer in the police station itself and that too after 21 days of the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the mechanical report of the vehicle also specifies that there was no damage to the motorcycle in question and therefore also, it is proved on record that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident.

4. Regarding the quantum of compensation, learned counsel submitted that there was no proof of income of the deceased available on record. He submitted that the income certificate as placed on record was admittedly issued after the date of death of the deceased which could not have been relied upon by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel also submitted that the evidence led by the witnesses was also not reliable as it was clear on record that AW-3 Mohd. Sadiq, the alleged eye witness, was an interested witness and his evidence qua the accident in question could not have been relied upon.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/claimant Shri Pushkar Taimini submitted that it was clearly established on record that Motorcycle No. RJ-06-SN-3333 was involved in the accident and the factum was proved beyond reasonable doubt by documentary as well as oral evidence. Learned counsel submitted that it is an admitted case that the insurance company did not conduct investigation in the matter and therefore, in absence of any investigation report by the insurance company, there was no reason why the version of the claimants could not have been relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that AW-3 Mohd. Sadiq specifically admitted that he had witnessed the accident and had even seen and noted the number of vehicle i.e. the motorcycle involved in the accident. There was nothing on record to disbelieve the statements of the said witness. Regarding the quantum of compensation, learned counsel submitted that there was sufficient evidence available on record to prove the income of the deceased and therefore, the compensation as awarded in favour of the claimants is just and does not deserve to be interfered with.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

7. It is an admitted fact that the FIR qua the accident in question was registered against an unknown vehicle at the first instance. AW-2 Shankerlal, who was the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination admitted that the information received by him was regarding an unknown vehicle. He, in his cross-examination stated as under:

^^;g dguk lgh gS fd eq>s rks fjiksVZ vKkr okgu eksVjlkbZfdy ls ,DlhMsUV gksus dh feyh FkhA**

8. He, further in his cross-examination, admitted that the vehicle was seized after 21 days of the accident and also that the same was seized at the police station itself. He further specifically admitted that the factum o