JUDGMENT :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

1 The aforesaid appeals have arisen from the judgment and award dated 20.01.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants have been partly allowed.

2. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleading of the parties, framed the issues and evaluated the evidence on record. After hearing counsel for the parties, decided the claim petitions and awarded the compensation in favour of the claimants.

3. Being dissatisfied with the same, S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.888/2021, 890/2021 and 940/2021 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation, whereas S. B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.476/2021, 477/2021 and 479/2021 have been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award.

4. In S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 476/2021 (United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Sohail Khan and Ors.) S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 477/2021 (United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Umar Farukhi and Ors.) and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 479/2021 (United India Insurance Company Ltd v. Nawab Khan and Ors.):

Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company(for short 'the Insurance Company') submits that the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has failed to consider the material and evidence brought on record in it's true and legal perspective. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the Tribunal has committed gross illegality because the alleged accident occurred on 02.11.2012, whereas, the FIR was lodged on 11.11.2012 against an unknown vehicle. Neither the claimant-injured-Sohail nor his family members informed the police regarding registration number of the offending vehicle. The claimant-injured Sohail in his statement clearly stated that he did not know whether the police came in the hospital or not. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further submits that the injury report(Ex.40) of the claimant-injured Sohail does not indicate that he had received the injuries due to the alleged accident. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the NAW-1 Ashish Verma in his statement clearly stated that it was not mentioned in the investigation report that the driver Shiv Charan was involved in the said accident. He further submits that Shiv Charan Gupta involves himself as a driver of the vehicle in the cases, where FIRs are lodged with a delay. In this regard, two claim petitions were produced before the Tribunal. So, impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal may be quashed and set-aside.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed against Shiv Charan Gupta, driver of the offending vehicle. The Insurance Company had not proved any cogent evidence that the offending vehicle was falsely involved in this case. So, appeals filed by the Insurance Company may be dismissed.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the claimants.

7. After investigation, Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against Shiv Charan Gupta, driver of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal in its order rightly came to the conclusion that the alleged vehicle was involved in the accident. So, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company