1. The present miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for brevity ‘Act’) is directed against the award dated 30.3.2008 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in Motor Vehicle Case No.2164/2007 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.13,10,500/- to be paid jointly and severally by the non-applicants (appellant and respondents No. 6 and 7 herein) to the applicants (respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) for the death of Rakesh Sahu and that the compensation so awarded shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition.

2. It is not disputed that at the time of the accident, respondent No.6 Sanjeet Kumar was driver and respondent No.7 Lalaramji was registered owner of the Truck bearing registration No. MP09-K/8405 and the said offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-New India Assurance Company Limited. It is an admitted fact that respondent No.1 Smt.Rajani Sahu is the wife of deceased Rakesh Sahu. Respondent No.2 Ku.Megha Sahu and respondent No.3 Ku.Versha Sahu are his daughters whereas respondent No.4 Kundanlal Sahu and respondent No.5 Smt.Bhagwati Sahu are his parents.

3. Short facts of the case are that on 27.7.2007 at about 3-4 pm, deceased Rakesh Sahu was returning from Pachmarhi to Mandideep in his Maruti 800 along with his friends. On the way near Singanama village, respondent No.6 Sanjeet Kumar who was driving the offending truck rashly and negligently dashed from the back side against Maruti 800 being driven by deceased Rakesh Sahu. As a result of the accident, Rakesh Sahu was grievously injured and admitted in Narmada Hospital, Bhopal where on 28.7.2007, he succumbed to his injuries. Report of the incident was lodged at Police Station Pachmarhi, District Hoshangabad and Crime No.71/07 was registered. Dead body of deceased Rakesh Sahu was sent for postmortem to Hamidiya Hospital. After due investigation, Chalan was filed against respondent No.6 Sanjeet Kumar before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bairasiya.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that there is collusion between the claimants and the owner. He further submits that the deceased was driving the car and dashed against the tree resulting in the injuries which had caused his death. He also brought to the notice of this Court Naksha Panchayatnama [Ex.D/5(B)]. He also submits that there was possibility that the Maruti 800 car overtook the truck. It was the negligence of deceased. In these circumstances, this case is of contributory negligence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 5 supported the impugned award.

6. I considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for both sides and perused the record.

7. The issue for consideration is whether the driver of Truck No.MP09-K/8405 caused the accident by negligence.

8. The claimants/respondents had produced their evidence and had exhibited number of documents. In this case, eye-witness Golu alias Gangadhar who was travelling with deceased at the time of incident was examined as PW 2. He stated that when they were returning their home from Pachmarhi near Singanama village respondent No. 6 Sanjeet Kumar was driving Truck No.MP09-K/8405. He in a rash and negligent manner dashed the Truck against the Maruti and consequently the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to such injuries. Golu alias Gangadhar (PW 2) clearly stated in his cross-examination that Truck No. MP09-K/8405 dashed against the Maruti Car and consequently the car dashed against the tree. Though PW 2 Golu alias Gangadhar was cross-examined at length on behalf of the respondent/appellant, nothing could be elicited from him to discredit his disinterested testimony. The evidence of PW 2 Golu alias Gangadhar is corroborated by First Information Report (Ex.P/2). Therefore, I am of the view that the testimony of PW 2 Golu alias Gangadhar cannot be disbelieved.

9. The learned cou