JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J.

Present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 15.05.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal').

2. The brief facts relevant to the present lis are that on 24.02.2022 Manoj Kumar son of Rajender was present at his home when his sister-inlaw (Bhabhi) informed him that his elder brother Narender (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') had met with an accident near village Swamika. He reached on the spot at about 06.30 pm and found that the deceased was lying unconscious on the left side of the road and blood was oozing out from his ear, nose and head. There were bruises on his body and face. The motorcycle of the deceased was lying on the road and a damaged cycle was also lying 10 to 12 feet ahead of it. The deceased was taken to Apex Hospital from where he was referred to Asian Hospital, Faridabad where during his treatment he succumbed to his injuries on 25.02.2022 at about 09.15 pm. Manoj Kumar also enquired about the owner of the damaged cycle and later came to know his name to be Om Parkash son of Sh. Ganga Lal, resident of village Swamika, Hathin who had also sustained injuries in the said accident. It was averred in the claim petition that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of a tractor bearing registration No.RJ-05-RC-8689 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') by its driver i.e. respondent No.5 herein. FIR No.87 dated 26.02.2022 under Sections 279, 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was also got registered at Police Station Hathin, Palwal on the statement of Manoj Kumar.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that while passing the impugned award the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that no accident had taken place and that the offending vehicle has falsely been planted in the present case to get the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would further contend that the alleged accident had taken place on 24.02.2022 at about 06.30 pm whereas the FIR was registered on 26.02.2022 at 01.15 pm. It is further the contention that no best eye-witness has been examined and the only eye-witness, namely, PW-3 Om Parkash had made his statement before the police involving the alleged offending vehicle on 16.03.2022 i.e. after 21 days of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has further contended that in the written statement the driver and owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent Nos.5 and 6 herein have clearly stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case and that a false FIR was registered against them qua the accident wherein registration number of the offending vehicle and name of its driver were not mentioned. It has further been contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive inasmuch as no evidence has been led on the record to prove the income of the deceased as Rs.30,000/- per month.

4. Heard.

5. In the present case, the claimants i.e. respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein have examined five witnesses. PW-2 was Manoj Kumar on whose statement the FIR was registered. The said witness has proved on record copy of the FIR as Ex.P1 and in his affidavit tendered in evidence as Ex.PW2/A, he has deposed all the averments as contained in the FIR. PW-3 Om Parkash is the eye-witness of the accident, who tendered in evidence his affidavit as Ex.PW3/A and deposed on oath regarding the manner in which the accident had taken place. In his statement PW-3 Om Parkash has stated that on 24.02.2022 at about 06.15 pm he was coming from Hathin to his house on his cycle and when he reached between village Swamika and Ghighdaka, one motorcycle was going ahead of him and in the meantime a tractor (offending vehicle), which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from village Swamika and first hit the motorcycle a