JUDGMENT :

PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.

1. The HDFC Ergo General Insurance company (hereinafter referred to as “appellant”) has filed this miscellaneous appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dholpur (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 40,50,000/- alongwith @ 6% per annum from the date of institution of filing the claim petition.

2. The insurance company questions the occurrence of the accident, assessment of the deceased salary, future prospects and consortium amount awarded to respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. Vide impugned award the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.40,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of claim, the break up of the same, under different heads, is as under:

4. Counsel for the claimants-respondents supported the impugned award.

5. Heard counsels of both the parties and perused the record as well as the impugned award.

Factual aspect regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle and its rash & negligent driving by respondent No. 4:

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the occurrence of the accident with the offending vehicle is highly doubtful as the FIR does not disclose the number of the offending vehicle.

7. The FIR was lodged by Hariom who was allegedly travelling with the deceased on the motorcycle but he did not mention the offending vehicle’s details. Further, at the relevant period deceased was ASI in Rajasthan Police and Hariom was a Constable.

8. He also argues that the non-examination of Hariom and the non-production of his injury report cast doubt over the claimants’ claim. Moreover, evidence of AW-2 Prem Prakash, as the eye witness to the incident, creates suspicion and material contrariety in his testimony, which questions the occurrence.

9. The MLC of the deceased demonstrates that the accident occurred due to the sudden loss of the deceased over the bike but the Tribunal ignored the vital fact. Further the deceased was brought to the hospital by the injured Hariom and on his information the fact about the incident was mentioned in the MLC. This exhibits that later on the offending vehicle was involved only for claiming compensation. The Tribunal also ignored the testimony of NAW-1 Satish Kumar Sharma, who exhibited the Ex.NA-1 and Ex.NA-2 (News Published in the Newspaper). Furthermore, the investigator examined on behalf of the appellant as NAW-2 K.V. Vijayan produced the certified copies of the criminal case initiated against the driver of the insured vehicle precisely indicating the fact of turning hostile of AW-2 Prem Prakash. The owner of the offending vehicle also did not support the version of the prosecution. The Tribunal rejected the prayer for recalling and further re-examining AW-2 Prem Prakash and summoning the material witnesses Hariom and Dr Omprakash. Further, the driver of the offending vehicle was acquitted by the concerned Magistrate vide Judgment Ex.NA-11. Therefore, the entire claim filed by the claimants is false and the impugned award needs to be set aside.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on M.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vaijanti and Others, 1995 (1) T.A.C. 659 (MP), Smt. Remavati Devi and Others vs. Ashok Kumar and Another, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1042/1997, decided on 20.09.2011, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mahila Munnidevi and Others, 1993 ACJ 1066 (MP), Minu B. Mehta and Another vs. Balkrishna Ramchandra Nayan and Another, 1977 ACJ 188 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Meena Variyal and Others, 2007 (2) T.A.C. 417 (SC)