ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 10.10.2022 whereby the claim of the respondent-claimants was accepted and they were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.11,77,000/- along with 9% interest.

2. The brief facts of this appeal are that on 10.08.2018 at about 1.00 PM the deceased Raj Kumar along with his daughter Varsha and daughter-in-law Sapna was going from the side of Lovely Professional University towards his Village Cheheru on motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-09-T-0992. When they reached in front of the railway over bridge on the slip road/service lane, one Toyota Fortuner bearing registration No.CH-01-AE-6667 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘offending vehicle’) came from the side of Jalandhar, which was being driven by Kulpreet Singh (respondent No.4 herein) in a rash and negligent manner. The car struck against the motor-cycle. The deceased Raj Kumar sustained multiple serious injuries as also the other riders. While Varsha and Sapna were discharged, the deceased Raj Kumar was referred to Ohri Hospital, Jalandhar due to the serious nature of his injuries. Eventually the deceased Raj Kumar succumbed to his injuries on 22.08.2018 in Johal Hospital, Jalandhar, where he was subsequently shifted. The claim petition was filed averring that the deceased Raj Kumar was 50 years of age at the time of his death and was working as Foreman/Supervisor with Shri Krishna Builders, Phagwara and was getting a salary of Rs.30,000/- per month. The driver of the offending vehicle Kulpreet Singh, respondent No.4 herein, failed to appear before the Tribunal and was proceeded against ex-parte on 16.01.2019. The owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.5 herein filed his written statement stating therein that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company and it was the insurance company which is liable to pay the compensation, if any. It was also averred that Kulpreet Singh, respondent No.4 herein, was appointed as a driver on being satisfied of his driving skills and after seeing his driving licence by the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.5. Further, the factum of the accident was denied and it was stated that a false FIR has been lodged. The appellant - Insurance Company - also filed its written statement raising the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence. Further, three people were riding on the motor-cycle which amounted to a violation of the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The appellant further denied the pleas as raised in the claim petition. The Tribunal vide award dated 10.10.2022 granted compensation of Rs.11,77,000/- along with interest. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that there is a delay of 12 days in registering the FIR and hence that itself proves that the case in hand is a false case which was filed only in order to get the compensation. It is further the contention that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving without a valid driving license. It is further the contention that the deceased was driving with two persons on the pillion seat. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the Insurance Company had examined RW1 Jaswinder Singh, Clerk RTA Office, Jalandhar to prove on the record the documents Ex.R/1 to Ex.R/4 and who had stated that as per the record the driving license Mark ‘A’ of Kulpreet Singh, respondent No.4 herein, was not issued by his office. It is further the contention that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

4. Heard.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a delay in lodging the FIR would be of no help inasmuch as it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunita & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. [(2020) 13 SCC