The court established that evidence of negligence and vehicle involvement can be supported by witness testimony, despite initial FIR discrepancies.

ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 03.05.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - I, Jodhpur, whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,60,792/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application i.e. 30.08.2014.

2. The application for compensation was filed inter alia with the submissions that one - Kojaram was riding on a motorcycle on 30.05.2014, when the offending vehicle struck him from behind resulting in the deceased suffering grievous injuries, to which he ultimately succumbed. It is claimed that the deceased - Kojaram was aged 25 years, was a workman and used to earn Rs. 15,000/-per month, based on the said submissions, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,09,58,000/- was claimed. The matter proceeded ex-parte against the driver and owners of the vehicle.

3. The appellant - Insurance Company filed its reply and contested the claim.

4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and eleven documents were exhibited. On behalf of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined and one document was exhibited.

5. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the vehicle and awarded compensation as noticed hereinbefore.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company made submissions that the Tribunal fell in error in deciding issue No.1 by holding that the accident occurred from the insured vehicle. It was indicated that the FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle on the next day of the accident and one eye witness (AW-2) - Motaram was produced, based on whose statements, it was found by the Tribunal that the vehicle was involved. It is submitted that the deceased - Kojaram has suffered chrush injuries and looking to the nature of vehicle, it cannot be said that the accident occurred from the said vehicle.

7. Further submissions were made that Motaram in his statement had indicated that he has informed about the involvement of the vehicle to the family members, despite that the same was not indicated in the FIR, which clearly shows that the vehicle was not involved and on that count, the finding recorded in this regard deserves to be set aside. It was also submitted that Tribunal has awarded interest at excessive rate and, therefore, in case the Insurance Company is found liable, the interest be reduced appropriately.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions. It was submitted that it was not even the case of the appellant - Insurance Company that the vehicle was not involved. A look at the reply filed by the Insurance Company, in fact, indicates that the vehicle was involved, however, allegations have been made that the deceased - Kojaram was driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently and, therefore, the plea is not available to the appellant.

9. Further submissions have been made that Tribunal has awarded the interest, based on the fact that the accident had occurred in the year 2014 and, therefore, the said rate of interest also does not call for any interference.

10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

11. A bare look at the FIR (Ex.-2) indicates that brother of the deceased lodged FIR by indicating that the deceased - Kojaram was riding his motorcycle on the correct side, when an unknown vehicle which was being driven, rashly and negligently, struck his motorcycle from behind and that the tyre of the vehicle, ran over the head of his brother, to which injuries he succumbed.

12. After investigation and response to notice under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Police filed challan in relation to the insured vehicle. During course of the present application, (AW-2) - Motaram was examined as eye witness by the claimants, who indicated that he was travelling on another motorcyc