The main legal point established in the judgment is that the delay in giving particulars of the vehicle was not fatal, and the involvement of the tractor trolley in the accident was established, influencing the decision on liability and compensation.

AMIT RAWAL J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of two appeals bearing Nos.505 of 2012 filed at the instance of the insurance company challenging the liability fastened upon it on the premise that the trolley attached with the tractor was not insured, therefore, there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and 1809 of 2013 at the instance of the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-insurance company in FAO No.505 of 2012 submitted that on 06.03.2010, the respondent-claimant along with his cousin Chattar Singh was going on motor cycle when the same was hit by one tractor trolley coming from the opposite side. Due to impact of the same, the claimant received multiple injuries, which ultimately resulted into amputation of left lower limb just below the hip. In this regard, FIR No.25 dated 7.3.2010 under Sections 279, 338 IPC was registered against respondent No.1 in police station, Babain against the unknown vehicle and driver, therefore, the aforementioned offending vehicle alleged to be involved in the accident was introduced later on, thus, there was an apparent collusion between the owner and driver of the offending tractor-trolley and the claimant.

3. She has drawn attention of this Court to the contents of the FIR, which reads as under:-

“On the tatement of Sh. Chattar Singh son of Sh. Mangta Ram, caste Balmiki resident of village Mathana, Thana Sadar, aged 40-42 years. It is stated that I am the resident of the above mentioned address and doing the labour work. Yesterday on 06.03.2010, I along with my cousin Ram Phal son of Sh. Phoola Ram, Caste Balmiki, resident of Village Mathana was going in motor cycle bullet No.PJI-3609 to Village Isherhari for engagement of daughter of uncle of Ram Phal. At about 2.00 p.m. During the day, we started from Village Isherhari after completion of engagement towards our village Mathana. Ram Phal was driving the motor cycle and I was sitting on the back. When we turned from Ladwa Sahabad Road from village Isherhari towards Babain, a tractor trolley mark Ford blue in colour came from the side of Babain which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and the said tractor trolley straightway hit a motor cycle. I and Ram Phal fell on the road due to the impact. Ram Phal suffered fracture in his right leg below knee due to fall on the road and I sustained simple injuries. The driver of the tractor who name and address I do not know took his tractor trolley and went towards Sahabad and I also became unconscious at the spot. After some time, some other persons including Phoola Ram, father of Ram Phal and Ram Parshad son of Bachna etc. came to the spot who took me and Ram Phal from the spot to Civil Hospital, Kurukshetra for treatment from where Ram Phal was referred to the PGI by the doctor and I was also given medicines. Today you have recorded my statement in Village Gohana. The driver of the tractor trolley make Ford, colour blue whose name and address do not know has caused the accident by driving the tractor trolley in a rash and negligent manner. The driver of the tractor trolley may kindly be located and the action be taken against them.”

4. The tractor trolley was introduced after 20 days from the accident. In the cross-examination, the claimant admitted that the police came at the spot after an hour of the accident but the tractor number was not given at the time of lodging of the FIR. The claimants have failed to examined Chattar Singh i.e. author of the FIR, eye witness of the accident to prove the involvement of the insured's vehicle. In the FIR, make of the tractor has been referred as Ford but respondent No.1 in his subsequent statement stated that the make of the tractor was Farmtrac, thus, for all intents and purposes, it was a case of hit and run.

5. The Tribunal has committed illegality and perversity in awarding a compensation of Rs.1,87,939/- alo