This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance

Company

under

Section

173(1)

of

M.V.Act,

challenging the liability in respect of judgment and

award dated 15.11.2014 passed in MVC No.85/2014

by the MACT & Fast Track Court, Bijapur.

2.

For the sake of convenience, parties are

referred with the ranks occupied by them before the

Tribunal.

3.

The factual matrix leading to the case are

that on 30.09.2013, the deceased Subhash Kore was

travelling in the passenger auto rickshaw bearing

registration No.MH-23/H-8073, from Mohal to Sayyad-

Warwade village. The said auto rickshaw was driven

with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and

when it came near Sayyad-Warwade village on Nazik-

4

Pimpari Mohal road, the driver dashed the auto

rickshaw to oncoming motorcycle bearing registration

No.MH-13/BF-5786 from opposite direction and as a

result, the auto rickshaw toppled down. Due to the

impact, the deceased Subhash Kore sustained fatal

injuries on his head and other parts of the body and

he was shifted to Rural Hospital at Mohal and after

giving first aid, he was shifted to Civil Hopsital,

Solapur, wherein he was declared brought dead. It is

alleged that the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000/-

per annum by contributing to the family and

petitioners being the wife and children of the deceased

have lost their bread earner. Hence, they filed a claim

petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, before the

tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.17,40,000/- from

the respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the ground that

respondent No.1 is the owner of the auto rickshaw

while respondent No.2 is the insurer.

5

4.

The respondent No.1 did not contest the

matter, while respondent No.2 the insurer appeared

and filed objections denying the age, occupation and

income of the deceased. He has also contended that

the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing

valid and effective driving license. He has specifically

taken up a defence that the vehicle was falsely

implicated in this case by colluding with the police and

respondent No.1 and the petition is also bad for non-

joinder of necessary parties. It is also further asserted

that the petitioners are not residents of Vijayapur,

Karnataka and they are residents of Maharashtra and

accident alleged to be taken place in Maharashtra and

this Court does not have any jurisdiction. Hence, they

disputed the claim.

5.

After

appreciating

the

oral

and

documentary evidence, the tribunal has awarded the

6

total compensation of Rs.5,08,000/- with interest @

6% p.a. to the petitioners by fastening the liability on

respondent No.2/appeallant herein.

6.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and

award passed by the tribunal, the appellant-Insurer

has filed this appeal challenging the liability.

7.

Heard the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer and learned

counsel for the respondents/petitioners. Perused the

records.

8.

Learned

counsel

for

the

appellant-

Insurance Company would contend that the very

involvement of the vehicle in the accident itself is

doubtful. He would contend that though the alleged

accident

said

to

have

been

taken

place

on

30.09.2013, the complaint was lodged after lapse of

7

15 days and this delay is not properly explained. He

would also contend that MLC details of Mohal Hospital

were not produced and it is alleged that there is head

on collision and the vehicle was toppled. But the MVI

report disclose that there is no damage to the vehicle

and Ex.P5, disclose that the vehicle number was

overwritten, which disclose that the vehicle was

planted subsequently. He would contend that there is

no material evidence to show the involvement of the

vehicle and as such sought for allowing the appeal by

dismissing the claim petition.

9.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

respondents -petitioners would support the judgment

and order passed by the tribunal. He would contend

that RW.1, who was examined was not an eye-witness

and the Insurance Company has not conducted any

enquiry and RW.1 does not have a