By the Court.—This First Appeal From Order under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by the appellant - insurance company against the judgment and award dated 29.3.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Mathura in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 440 of 2010 (Smt. Brajesh Devi and others v. Suresh Kumar Shastri and others) whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 23,11,000/- alongwith 7% simple interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the claimant-respondents fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the appellant - insurance company.

2. In the claim petition, the respondents set up a case that on 10.2.2008 at about 10.00 a.m.when the deceased was going to his village Salemabad, district Agra alongwith his wife, Smt. Brajesh Devi on motor-cycle and when they reached near Gate No. 2 of Mathura Refinery on National Highway No. 2, the driver of the offending car, bearing registration No. UP-85-S-0620, being driven rashly and negligently, hit the motor-cycle from the back side, causing grievous injuries to the deceased and also some injuries to Smt. Brajesh Devi, the pillion rider. The deceased was admitted in the hospital and during the course of treatment, he died on 14.12.2008.

3. It was the case of the claimants that the accident has been caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the offending car and rash driving. However, it is the admitted case that though Brajesh Devi, the wife of the deceased, who was pillion rider also suffered some injuries in the same accident but she did not file any claim petition.

4. Opposite party No. 1 - Suresh Kumar Shastri, owner of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 5 and opposite party No. 3 - Leela Singh, driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 6 have filed their written statements denying the fact mentioned in the claim petition. They pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased, who was driving the motorcycle, fell down in front of the Car, therefore, the accident took place. It is also the case of these respondents that accident was the result of sole rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased and there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending Car.

5. Appellant - insurance company has also filed written statement denying all the facts mentioned in the claim petition and has pleaded that no such type of accident took place with the offending Car on the date, time and place mentioned in the claim petition. There is collusion between the owner/driver and the claimants.

6. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal has framed issues regarding accident and the injuries sustained by the deceased, driving license, insurance policy and also in regard to relief/compensation.

7. Claimants have examined before the Tribunal P.W.1 Brajesh Devi and P.W.2 Shamsher Singh in oral evidence and have filed documentary evidence also. Opposite parties did not examine any witness in oral evidence, but filed documentary evidence.

8. Tribunal, after hearing the parties, vide impugned judgement and order, awarded the compensation as above.

9. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgement and award, the present Appeal has been filed.

10. Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company and Sri Santosh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

11. Counter-affidavit on behalf of the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has been filed.

12. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant - insurance company that accident is said to have taken place on 10.2.2008. The first information report was lodged in this matter on 11.6.2010 on the basis of order passed on the application dated 8.4.2010 under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. No evidence about the treatment has been filed to connect the death of the deceased with the said accident. It has also been