Hon’ble Saral Srivastava, J.—Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

2. The appellant Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 6.4.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Fast Track Court 1st, Merrut, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1109 of 2009, has preferred the present appeal whereby Tribunal has awarded Rs. 17,73,350/- with 6% interest as compensation to the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. The appellant has challenged the order dated 6.4.2010 on two counts namely the Tribunal has acted illegally in not appreciating the correct facts on records while holding that the alleged accident had taken place by Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111; the second contention raised by counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side.

4. Brief facts which led to filing the claim petition are that the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 3 being legal heirs of deceased Pradeep Rastogi, instituted claim petition stating that Pradeep Kumar was riding Scooter No. UP-15-Q-562 from his home to stadium for morning walk and was hit by Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111 driven by its driver rashly and negligently near Alexander Club. The claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 prayed for compensation of Rs. 60,00,000/- as the deceased was running a jewellery shop, and his monthly income was Rs. 70,000/- per month as per claim petition.

5. The aforesaid claim petition was contested by the owner of the bus namely Munit Kumar who filed written statement denying the involvement of Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111 in the alleged accident. The alternative plea set up by the owner of the vehicle in the written statement was that there was no negligence of driver of bus in the said accident, and further the compensation prayed for was excessive and not reasonable.

6. The appellant Insurance Company also contested the claim petition by filing written statement denying the involvement of the aforesaid Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111 in the said accident. The Insurance Company further pleaded in the written statement that their liability to pay the compensation was subject to the terms and conditions of contract of insurance, and compensation prayed for by the claimants was excessive.

Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed six issues. The counsel for the appellant has assailed the finding on issue No. 1 with respect to the occurrence of the accident with Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111 and negligence of driver of bus in the said accident, and issue No. 3 with regard to quantum of compensation. The counsel for the appellant has not assailed findings on rest of the issues.

7. The counsel for the appellant while assailing the finding on issue No. 1 has urged that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to involvement of Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111 in the accident is illegal and based on misreading of evidence on record. To buttress the aforesaid submission, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that statement of eye-witness of the alleged accident namely PW-2 Abhishek Sharma was contradictory and inconsistent and therefore, the Tribunal did not rely upon the statement of PW-2 namely Abhishek Sharma in deciding the issue No. 1 with regard to involvement of the bus, hence the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had failed to prove the involvement of the Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111 in the alleged accident. He further contended that the Tribunal being conscious of the fact that there was inconsistency and contradiction in the statement of PW-2 namely Abhishek Sharma; the tribunal has acted illegally in misreading the statement of Anil Chaudhary C.W.1, who was produced by the appellant insurance company to prove the false implication of Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111, in order to arrive at the finding that the accident had taken place by Bus No. H.R.-10-P.A.O.-111.

8. The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the burden to prove that the accident had