ORDER :

Vivek Agarwal, J.

This appeal under section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, is filed by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved of the award dated 9-11-2010, passed by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshangabad (M. P.), in Case No. 12/2010, Smt. Manju Parihar and others vs. Firoz Khan and others, on the ground that accident took place on 24-1-2009. FIR was lodged on 8-3-2009, against an unknown vehicle i.e. after delay of 44 days. Thereafter, in the investigation, closure report was filed as no clue of any vehicle was given. Thereafter, falsely vehicle insured with the present appellant bearing registration No. MP-04-J/1866, has been implicated.

2. It is submitted that there is an interesting chronology of events. Deceased Meharban Singh was a police personnel. In the FIR (Ex.P/1), it is mentioned that incident took place on 24-1-2009. Information was received at the police station on 8-3-2009, whereas, Meharban Singh died while taking treatment on 7-3-2009. FIR was lodged against an unknown vehicle. In the FIR itself, it is mentioned that intimation was received that a person in an injured condition was lying on the road and he was identified as Meharban Singh. Case was registered under section 279, 337 of INDIAN PENAL CODE . What is interesting is that in the FIR, section 304-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE , has been scored out. After death of Meharban Singh, when intimation was received, then why section 304-B of INDIAN PENAL CODE was scored out is not understandable. Thus, FIR prima facie reveals that manipulation was being done to help the claimants, because they happen to be relatives of an employee of the Police Department.

3. In the final report dated 26-12-2009, offending vehicle was implicated. The sole witness to support the accident with the offending vehicle is Yashpal Singh s/o Lalit Singh Bhadoriya, resident of Guradiya, Tahsil Babai, District Hoshangabad (M. P.). He deposed that on 24-1-2009, at about 7:30 P.M., he had seen accident taking place at Village Semri Harchand, near culvert on the river, when Jeep No. MP-04-J/1866, had hit an unknown person. As a result, he was grievously injured and had fallen on the side of the road. He has deposed that accident took place in front of him. He was travelling from Village Semri to his Village Guradiya. He had seen the vehicle number and, later on, discovered that injured was Meharban Singh Parihar. He in para 2 of his examination-in-chief, has deposed that police had come to him to take information and then he had informed the police about the number of the vehicle, it was the Mahindra Jeep.

4. In cross-examination, there are glaring contradictions. He has admitted that he was not knowing Meharban Singh. He has admitted that he had seen incident from a distance of 100-150 ft. Mrs. Ruprah, submits that in a winter evening at 7:30 P.M., visibility is as such low and number of the vehicle could not have been seen from a distance of 100-150 ft. This witness admits that he is not remembering the date of the incident, but it was of the year 2009. Then he has admitted that he had not taken the deceased to the hospital. He has admitted that he had not stopped at the place of the incident after witnessing the incident. He has further admitted in para 6 of his cross-examination that he came to Court at the instance of the claimants to give his evidence. He had not received any notice from the Court.

5. There is no description of this witness in the evidence of Smt. Manju Parihar, otherwise she should have corroborated that how she came in contact with this witness Yashpal Singh and how and when he narrated the details of the incident and when they were given to t