JUDGMENT

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Mr. Ravi Kadian, Advocate puts in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 and files Power of Attorney which is taken on record.

2. Present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging Award dated 24.10.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal") in Claim Petition No.145 of 2015 filed by claimants/respondents No.1 to 5 herein under section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Vide the impugned Award, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.31,92,848/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its actual realisation. Learned Tribunal awarded compensation as above on account of death of Sandeep Kumar.

3. Learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings and evidence adduced before it concluded that the deceased-Sandeep Kumar had died due to injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 02.08.2015 at mid night due to rash and negligent driving of Santro car bearing registration No.HR-14J-4245 (hereinafter referred to as 'the offending vehicle') being driven by respondent No.6, owned by respondent No.7 and insured by the appellant herein. The claimants are the widow, two minor children and parents of deceased-Sandeep Kumar.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the impugned Award on the grounds:

a) that the accident had occurred on 02.08.2015 at mid night. However, FIR No.784 was registered under Sections 279 and 304A IPC on 04.08.2015 i.e. after a delay of 1½ days. It is submitted that furthermore, FIR was registered against unknown vehicle. It is submitted that learned Tribunal's conclusion is patently erroneous as it is an admitted case of the claimants that the alleged accident had taken place on the intervening night of 2 and 3 August, 2015 and in the FIR itself number and description of the vehicle is not mentioned, nor was the driver named. It is submitted that as per the claimants' story itself, the deceased along with his brother PW2-Pardeep who was pillion riding behind the deceased at the time of accident, and who is the author of the FIR, has not disclosed particulars of the offending vehicle to the police even two days after the alleged accident and admittedly, he got the FIR registered against unknown driver and unknown vehicle. It is submitted that during cross-examination, even a suggestion was put to PW2 regarding correctness of the FIR to which PW2 has stated that FIR was correctly recorded. It is stated that therefore, the story put forth by the claimants is false as the accident, as well as involvement of the offending vehicle is doubtful;

b) that learned Tribunal has held driver of the alleged offending vehicle to be rash and negligent only on the basis of the statement of PW3-Anoop son of Rajender, and on basis of the pending criminal proceedings against the driver. However, learned Tribunal has ignored the fact that police has recorded statement of PW3 after 16 days of the accident;

c) that the claimants have planted the alleged offending vehicle in connivance with respondents No.6 and 7 as well as local police only in order to extract compensation;

d) that the evidence on record shows that the claimants had failed to connect the accident with the alleged offending vehicle. However, they have tried to connect the same by introducing PW3-Anoop Singh as the witness of the accident. It is submitted that thus, the finding of the learned Tribunal based totally upon the statement of PW-Anoop, alleged eyewitness, and the fact that challan/report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed