JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

Present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 07.05.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 08.10.2023 Surinder Singh alias Rinku (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') alongwith Sawan was returning to his village from Radaur on a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-75D-9864. Sawan was riding the motorcycle and the deceased was the pillion rider. At about 06:30 pm, when they reached near DAV School, Radaur to Jathlana Road, respondent No.6 herein while driving a motorcycle bearing registration No.HR-05-BJ-6054 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') in a rash and negligent manner, came on the wrong side of the road and rammed the same into the motorcycle of the deceased as a result of which Sawan and the deceased fell on the road and sustained multiple and grievous injuries. Respondent No.6 fled from the spot leaving behind the offending vehicle. The deceased and Sawan were shifted to Civil Hospital, Radaur from where they were referred to Civil Hospital, Yamunanagar. Due to his critical condition, the deceased was referred to PGIMER, Chandigarh but he was taken to M.M. Hospital, Mullana by his family, where he succumbed to his injuries. On the basis of statement of Sawan, FIR No.253 dated 09.10.2023 under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered at Police Station Radaur.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has overlooked the evidence available on the record and has wrongly passed the impugned award. Learned counsel would further contend that there was material contradiction in the statement of alleged eye-witness, namely, Sawan who stepped into the witness-box as PW2 inasmuch as during his cross-examination he has stated that the deceased was shifted to Civil Hospital, Radaur in an ambulance. However, RW2 Mahesh, Assistant, Civil Hospital, Radaur has stated that it was nowhere mentioned as to who had brought the deceased to the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has further contended that no accident as alleged by the claimant had taken place and the offending vehicle was falsely involved in the present case only in order to claim the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that there was no evidence on the record to prove that the deceased died as a result of the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case, Sawan eye-witness of the accident was examined as PW-2, who proved on the record the certified copy of the charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle as Ex.P1, certified copy of the final report under Section 173 CrPC as Ex.P2 and certified copy of the FIR registered qua the accident in question as Ex.P5. This witness has deposed on oath that respondent No.6 herein was riding the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and came on the wrong side of the road and rammed the same into the motorcycle of the deceased, which resulted in the death of the deceased. He further deposed that on his statement FIR (Ex.P5) was registered against respondent No.6 at Police Station Radaur and that respondent No.6 after being charge-sheeted has been facing trial before the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri. This witness was cross-examined at length by the appellant-Insurance Company and respondent Nos.6 and 7 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle however, nothing contrary could be elicited from his statement to falsify the accident in question.

6. A perusal of the impugned award reveals that the Tribunal has given due weightage to the evidence recorded before it. It is trite that the cases under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are to be decided