The main legal point established is the requirement for cogent evidence to challenge the involvement of a vehicle in an accident and the application of principles of loss of dependency and multiplier to calculate compensation.

J.K. Maheshwari, J.

This order shall govern the disposal of M.A. No. 4038/2010 Shalini and others v. Harbhajan and others and M.A. No. 4142/2010 the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shalini and others. M.A. No. 4038/2010 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement and M.A. No. 4142/2010 has been filed by the Insurance Company on the point of involvement of the vehicle. Both these appeals arise out of the award dated 29th June, 2010 passed by the 1st Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhidwara in Claim Case No.70/2010 whereby in a case of death of Kishore Telgote compensation of Rs.20,51,148/- in total has been awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants.

2. The claimants had filed the claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 44,99,140/ - on account of death of deceased Kishore Telgote in an accident took place on 13th July, 2009. It was pleaded by the claimants, i.e., widow, kids and mother that the sole bread earner of the family has died in the accident having his earning from the job in Western Coalfields Ltd., however the compensation as prayed in the claim petition may be awarded.

3. Shri Kapil Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants contends that the salary of the deceased was Rs. 25,381/-per month because he was in the employment of the Western Coalfields Ltd. The Tribunal deducted Rs. 6,500/- which is being received by the wife of the deceased as pension. It is also contended that the multiplier of 12 so applied at the age of 47 years is inappropriate. Considering the aforesaid facts adequate compensation may be awarded.

4. On the other hand, Shri Jayant Neekhra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company contends that in the Marg Intimation number of the offending vehicle was not there. In the F.I.R. also number of the vehicle was not there though it was made by Silas Milton who is said to be in collusion with the deceased. It does not reveal from the record how the said vehicle came on record during investigation to the police. Referring the statement of Shalini Telgote it is said that the documents of the vehicle were filed by her in the Court and the owner of the vehicle is Parasnath Suryawanshi who is the Chairman of the Society of the W.C.L. However, it is a case of collusion with the owner and the claimants. In such circumstances involvement of the vehicle No. M.P. 28-H/0126 has wrongly been found by the Tribunal. Thus, the finding so recorded by the Tribunal may be set aside by allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

5. After having heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record it is apparent that on the spot deceased had died which was confirmed while he was sent to the hospital. The post mortem report indicates that it is a case of death in a road accident. The police officers in the investigation found the involvement of vehicle No. M.P. 28-H/0126 and challan has been filed against the owner and the driver of the said vehicle Anand Suryawanshi and Harbhajan Kumre. The Tribunal referring the judgment of this Court in the case of Sajjan Singh Tomar and others Vs. Brijmohan Bairagi and others, (2007) 2 MPLJ 88, found that merely not mentioning the number of the vehicle in the F.I.R. is not sufficient until and unless cogent evidence to show the incorrect involvement of the vehicle has been produced. In the present case Insurance Company has not brought any evidence on record creating doubt on involvement of the said vehicle so to prove the plea so taken on the said issue. The said argument is being advanced merely on the basis the question put-forth in the cross-examination by the Insurance Company to Shalini Telgote who has answered it in negative. In such case merely on the basis of cross-examination the plea taken in defence by the Insurance Company of collusion of the claimants and owner has not been established by the Insurance Company. Therefore