ORDER

1. This miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the New India Assurance Company Limited and the claimants being aggrieved of award dated 29.11.2017 passed by learned 1st Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Dindori in Claim Case No.270/2016.

2. Shri Dinesh Koshal, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that it is a case of false implication of the vehicle inasmuch as the accident took place on 23.7.2016. The first information report was lodged against an unknown vehicle and thereafter an insured vehilce was falsely implicated in this case. The Insurance Company examined driver of the offending vehicle, namely, Jaipal Singh, who clearly denies the factum of the accident. The report of the Investigating Officer is proved by the Officer of the Insurance Company and, therefore, there was no material on record to record a finding of involvement of Ertiga Car bearing registration No. MP52-CA-0624.

3. Shri Bhagwan Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants, in his turn, submits that the Claims Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month for an accident, which took place on 23.7.2016 whereas on the date of the accident, even minimum wages for an unskilled labourer were to the tune of Rs.6850/- per month. The Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospect and has awarded a meager compensation under other non-pecuniary heads, therefore, the claimants have filed M.A.No.1424/2018 seeking enhancement to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Jaipal Singh was examined as Applicant Witness No.2. He filed an affidavit under Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 denying the factum of the accident. In Paragraph No.1 of the affidavit, he states that the accident took place after several hours of his crossing the place of the accident. In cross-examination, this witness admits that he has no enmity with Gulam Abbas, who had taken number of his vehilce as the offending vehicle. This witness denies that he was arrested, which is contrary to the document on record inasmuch as along with the Challan, copy of arrest memo of Jaipal Singh is available showing his surrender before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Dindori on 26.9.2016.

5. Thus, it is evident that Gulam Abbas had surrendered before the Criminal Court. There is no other substantive cross-examination on Jaipal Singh (AW.2) so as to deny the factum of the accident. Infact, this witness admits in Paragraph No.1 of his examination-in-chief and admittedly this witness was not produced by the claimants, who had appeared on his own that he had crossed the place of the incident but the accident took place several hours after his crossing. He had not given any time that when did he cross the place of the incident.

6. Thus, there is a tacit admission of his presence at the place of the incident. The Insurance Company did not bother to ask him in his cross examination that what was the time when he had admittedly crossed the place of the incident as is admitted by him in the examination-in-chief. If this question would have been put to this witness then actual fact would have come out by corroborating the time of the accident as is mentioned in the first information report with the statement of the driver Jaipal Singh but the Insurance Company has failed to carry out the effective cross-examination of this witness.

7. Similarly, narrator of the number of the offending vehilce is Gulam Abbas, who was examined by the claimants. In his cross-examination also, the Insurance Company could not extract any contradiction to deny his presence. The Insurance Company proceeded on the line that humanity requires that if any accident takes place then the injured should be taken to the hospital to which, this witness clearly answers that he was not carrying his mobile phone and the deceased bein