JUDGMENT :

(Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. Heard Amitabh Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Nagendra Kumar Srivastava assisted by Miss Anubha Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the claimants, challenges the judgment and award dated 29.07.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No.1, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.662 of 2001 awarding a sum of Rs.54,500/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. as compensation.

3. The brief facts as culled out from the record are that this claim petition was filed before the learned tribunal by the appellants on account of death of Jai Kishan Gupta in a road accident on 26.02.2001. It is averred in petition that on 26.2.2001, the deceased was travelling in Maruti Car No. UP 22 B 5032 from Badaun to Rampur via Bareilly along with his wife and son. The driver of the car was driving rashly and negligently. He was cautioned by the deceased and his wife but he paid no heed. Consequently, Car collided with a tree in District Bareilly. In this accident, the deceased sustained serious injuries. He was admitted in District Hospital and for better treatment he was being carried to Delhi, but on the way he died.

4. The claim petition was decided by the tribunal and only Rs.54,500/-were awarded along with interest 6% per annum under “no fault liability”. Because it was the finding of the tribunal that deceased himself was driving the car at the time of accident and he himself was negligent and responsible for the accident.

5. Aggrieved with the impugned judgment appellant preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submission that at the time of accident, the driver, namely, Aslam Khan was driving the Car. It is submitted that First Information Report of the accident was lodged in concerned police station. In First Information Report, it is also clearly mentioned that car was being driven very rashly and negligently by driver Aslam.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the driver Aslam Khan was produced in evidence before learned Tribunal as PW-3. In his testimony, he has admitted that he was driving the car, but learned tribunal has not appreciated his evidence in right perspective. It is next submitted that learned tribunal has made the ground of rejection of claim that a claim form of the car was filled up by the brother of deceased because deceased was the registered owner of the car and in the aforesaid claim form, he mentioned that deceased was driving the car.

8. On the basis of this entry in the claim form, learned tribunal reached to the conclusion that the deceased was himself driving the car. Learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court titiled National Insurance Company Ltd v. Chamundeshwari and others in Civil Appeal No.6151 of 2021 delivered on 1.10.2022; Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand reported in 2020 (0) AIJEL-SC 65725; and judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Rahisa Begum Since Deceased And Another v. Sri Susheel Chandra Gupta and Another delivered on 2.9.2021.

9. While wife of the deceased and car driver Aslam Khan have specifically stated in their respective testimony that Aslam Khan was driving the car, but their testimony was not believed by the tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for Insurance Company vehemently objected the submissions made by appellant and submitted that First Information Report of the accident was lodged by the wife of the deceased after the delay of 15 days and no explanation of this delay was given, it show that a story was cooked up by the appellants with Aslam Khan to obtain compensation illegally and to fulfil the intention, it was shown in F.I.R. that Aslam Khan was driving the car. Learned counsel also submitted that the car was in the name of the deceased. The brother of the deceased filled up the form, provided by the insurance company, to claim the damages with regard to the car. In the