ORDER

Record is received. Considered I.A.No.11718/2019, which is an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2 . It is stated that there is delay of 85 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, it appears that there exist sufficient cause for condonation of delay for not filing the appeal within prescribed time. Accordingly, I.A.No.11718/2019 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. Heard on admission. The appeal is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is heard finally.

4 . This Misc.Appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short the "Act"] has been filed by the appellants/claimants against dismissal of their Claim Case No.3400550/2016 by the 8th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Satna [hereinafter referred to the as the "Tribunal"] vide award dated 05.2.2019.

5 . Brief facts of the case are that appellants/claimants filed claim petition under section 166 of the Act stating that on 10.8.2016 at about 7.30 p.m. husband of appellant/claimant No.1, namely, Ramvishwas was returning to home from his field by feet and As soon as he reached near Mohariya field at that juncture the respondent No.1 driving his motorcycle (MP-19/MN-9317) in rash and negligent manner dashed against deceased-Ramvishwas resulting in grievous injuries as a result of which he ultimately died in District Hospital during treatment, therefore, compensation of Rs.22,55,000/- be granted.

6. The learned Tribunal held that it is not proved that deceased died on account of accident caused by respondent through dash of motorcycle in question. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding in respect of Issues No.2, 3 & 4 on the ground that accident is not proved. Accordingly, it dismissed the claim petition.

7 . Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Tribunal did not allow parties to adduce evidence and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition and hence, matter be remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to the concerned Tribunal to afford opportunity to all the parties to lead proper evidence on all issues.

8 . Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has supported the impugned award and submitted that deceased died as he was crushed by an Ox but after about a month false story was made to get compensation.

9 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record it is seen that deceased got seriously injured. On getting information the Police registered Marg intimation. On the basis of Marg enquiry, Crime was registered for offences under sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent No.1. After investigation charge-sheet has also been filed against respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 did not file written statement before the Tribunal and chose to remain ex parte. The Insurance Company in its written statement before the Tribunal raised an objection that in Marg intimation it is mentioned that a male person was crused by an Ox and was brought dead on 10.8.2016 and in that case information about motorcycle was not given and there was breach of Insurance Policy as he was not possessing driving licence.

10. In the Tribunal the statement of niece of deceased was recorded.

The niece-Ankita Verma has been examined as AW.2 who has supported the claim case and submitted that she was with her 'Tauji'/'Bade Papa'. She also stated that when they went to lodge a report, the Police did not lodge report on that day, therefore, report was lodged on the next date. The witness on behalf of Insurance Company, namely, Mohd.Sadik (NA.No.1) deposed before the Tribunal that deceased-Ramvishwas died due to accident with an Ox, although he admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of accident he was not present at the spot.

11 . Very crucial to this case is that on 31.10.2018 on behalf of the applicants the Investigation Officer-Shyam Sunder Manjhi