The court affirmed that corroborative evidence and the totality of circumstances are crucial in establishing liability in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 02.08.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Pratapgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 53/2018 whereby, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 13,58,320/- in favour of respondents-claimants on account of the death of Deepak in the accident which occurred on 01.01.2018.

2. The learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the respondents-claimants.

3. The appeal preferred by the appellant - Insurance Company is on the ground that the Tribunal committed an error while recording the finding of fact on Issue No. 1 and 2 against the Insurance Company.

4. Heard.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was not at all involved in the accident. Learned counsel vehemently argued that from the statement of AW-2 Rahul, it has come on record that at the time of the accident, vehicle pickup was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver Bharat Lal and the registration number of the pickup was informed to the police. But these facts are conspicuously missing in the F.I.R. He further submits that in the F.I.R. the number of the pickup was not mentioned and the vehicle was produced before police by its owner after a period of 29 days and thus, it shows that there was a collusion between the claimants and the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel further submits that seeing the inconsistency in the statements of AW-1, AW-2 and the F.I.R., it can safely be inferred that the vehicle insured with the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case just for the purpose of getting the compensation. He further submits that even in the Rojanamacha Report neither the registration number of the vehicle insured with appellant - Insurance Company was mentioned nor the manner in which the accident took place was mentioned.

6. Learned counsel implored this Court to the site plan prepared by the police and tried to impress upon the manner in which narration of the accident was mentioned which clearly shows that the same is not corroborating with the statements of AW-2. He further submits that the facts mentioned in the F.I.R. cannot be partially read in favour of the claimants-respondents but the same are required to be read in totality. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla reported in 2007 (13) SCC 746.

7. Learned counsel thus, submits that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding the compensation against the present appellant - Insurance Company and the same therefore, is required to be set aside.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submits that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 1 and 3, is just and proper and no infirmity was committed. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the evidence brought on record rightly concluded that the vehicle insured with the Insurance Company was the only vehicle with which the accident occurred and there was no question of the same having been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there was no contradiction in the statements of AW-2 viz-a-viz the F.I.R. Learned counsel further submits that the F.I.R. is not an encyclopedia and only the factum of accident was mentioned in the F.I.R. and the same cannot be denied. He further submits that in reply to the notice received by the owner under Section 133 of the M.V. Act, it was submitted by him that his driver Bharat Lal was driving the vehicle at the time of accident which occurred on 01.01.2018. He further submits that even the M.T.O. report placed on record as Exp-16 shows that the right side of the bonnet was bumped and broken. He further submits that a charge-sheet against the driver was filed by