The driver of the offending vehicle admitted the accident, and the evidence presented by the claimants supported the negligence in driving of the offending vehicle, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - CM-2000-CII-2021

This is an application for condonation of delay of 105 days in filing the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Main Appeal

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the award dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehabad (for short, the Tribunal), whereby an amount of `12,48,520/- along with interest, from the date of filing of petition till its realization, has been awarded as compensation to the claimants.

3. The parties herein are being referred to as the claimants and the respondents as were referred in the claim petition filed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts, as mentioned in the award passed by the Tribunal are; that on 25.07.2017 Munna Shah along with Happy son of Kashmiri Lal had left Fatehabad city for Pali Hotel, G.T. Road, Fatehabad; on motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-22E/5160. The said motorcycle was being driven by Munna Shah and Happy was the pillion rider on the said motorcycle. Munna Shah had stopped his motorcycle in front of Pali Hotel, Fatehabad to take meal. Then all of a sudden, the bulls standing nearby started fighting and in the process; one of the bulls struck into the motorcycle of Munna Shah. Munna Shah and Happy fell down on the road. Thereafter one Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.HR-62/7515, being driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently and at a high speed in a zig zag manner came and struck against the body of Munna Shah and also hit Happy. Both of them sustained injuries. Lateron, Munna Shah was taken to hospital where he was declared brought dead. With these assertions, the claim petition was filed by the claimants claiming therein that the accident had taken place purely and exclusively due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The claimants were totally dependent upon the earnings of deceased Muuna Shah, who was 26 years of age. He was working as a labourer. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.50.00 Lakh was claimed as compensation in the claim petition.

5. Upon notices, the respondent No.1 appeared and filed his written statements denying the contents of the claim petition. However, the factum of accident was admitted by him but it was further asserted that there was no fault on his part in the accident. Rather, the accident had taken place all of a sudden due to fight between two bulls.

6. Respondent No.2, the insurance company, filed separate written statement stating therein that respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. Still further, it was asserted that no accident had taken place on the given date, time and place with the Pickup bearing registration No.HR-62/7515. Accordingly, the accident was denied altogether. Further pleading of respondent No.2 was that the accident had not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

7. To prove the assertions made in the claim petition, the claimants examined witnesses, including the pillion rider, namely, Happy to substantiate their case. It was duly deposed by this witness that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.1. Other aspects were also proved by the claimants by leading relevant evidence. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.12,48,520/- was awarded as compensation by the Tribunal. On the other hand, respondents had not led any evidence whatsoever to substantiate anyone of the assertions raised in their written statements.

8. Arguing the case, the counsel for the appellant-insurance company, who was respondent No.2 in the claim petition, has submitted that the first version qua the accident in question had come in the DDR recorded by the police at the instance of the above said Happy. In that DDR, it has been recorded that no one was at fault for the accident. It is fu