SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these appeals have been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 27. 3. 2000 passed by the First additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chhindwara, in Claim Case No. 47 of 1998.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that on 22. 9. 1992 deceased Balram was going on scooter No. MP 22-B 1395. When he reached near Panchveli Mahavidyalaya, parasia at 10. 37 a. m. , a truck No. MPH 4749 driven by Chhotekhan dashed the scooter. Deceased Balram fell down and sustained grievous injuries, he was immediately taken to the hospital where he died on 23. 9. 1992. Anandrao (father) and Rekha (mother) of the deceased Balram had filed an application under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 17,45,000 for the accidental death of their son Balram. The owner and the insurer of the truck, involved in the accident, contested the claim. After recording the evidence the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company and awarded compensation of Rs. 92,000 to the claimant Rekha as Anandrao died during the pendency of claim petition.

( 3 ) DISSATISFIED with the award claimant rekha has filed Misc. Appeal No. 1010 of 2000 for enhancement of the award and also against the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the insurance company. Misc. Appeal No. 967 of 2000 has been filed by the owner of the truck, challenging the award on the ground that the insurance company has wrongly been exonerated and also on the ground that the award is excessive.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. Anil Lala, learned counsel for the claimant, Mr. Pramod Thakre, learned counsel for the owner of offending truck and Mr. N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the record.

( 5 ) THE points for consideration in these appeals are whether the insurance company has rightly been exonerated and whether the claimant has been awarded just compensation.

( 6 ) EXH. D-l is the cover note about insurance of truck No. MPH 4749. This cover note bears seal of the insurance company and also signature of the authorised insurer for United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Owner of the said truck, Shaikh Israj, naw-1, in his evidence had deposed that after expiry of the policy of insurance of truck No. MPH 4749 on 4. 1. 1992 he went in the branch of United India Insurance co. Ltd. and deposited Rs. 1,420 in cash and obtained cover note No. 65557, Exh. D-l. Nothing has been brought out in the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the evidence of Shaikh Israj. Sanjay Verma, branch Manager of the insurance company, in his evidence has stated that the cover note, Exh. D-l, has not been issued by their office and no record is available about it in their office. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the seal contained in the cover note No. 65557, exh. D-l, appears to be seal pertaining to Chhindwara Branch of United India 726 insurance Co. Ltd. He has not specifically denied that there was no authorised agent in the name of signatory of Exh. D-l, Par-vez Qureshi. On the other hand, he has stated that he has no knowledge whether in the year 1992 Parvez Qureshi was their authorised agent or not. He further deposed that presently Parvez Qureshi is not in their branch at Chhindwara. Relying upon such evidence the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company. We are unable to endorse the appreciation of evidence as done by the Tribunal. From the evidence on record it is proved that the offending truck was insured with respondent United India insurance Co. Ltd. and a cover note No. 65557, Exh. D-l, to that effect was issued by the authorised agent of the insurance company. The evidence of Sanjay Verma witness of insurance company that record with respect of insurance of the said truck is not available is of no significance in view of the cover note, Exh. D-l, issued by the insurance company. The insurance company has not specifically denied the genuineness of the said document. There is no evide

Click Here to Read the rest of this document