Appellant/Insurance Company has preferred this appeal under

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the

award dated 11.10.2018 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Mandla (M.P.) in MACC No.164/2016, whereby learned

Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,82,000/- (Two lacs Eighty Two thousand Only)

with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition.

Brief facts of the case are that on, 12.10.2015 at around 02:00 PM,

claimant/respondent No.1 was riding on Motor-cycle No.MP-51-MB-4683

which was driven by respondent No.2 and deceased Khutiya Bai w/o

Sukhai Gond was also riding on the said Motor cycle at the time of the

incident. Offending vehicle was being driven in rash and negligent manner

by respondent No.2 as a result of which Khutiya Bai fell down from the

motorcycle and sustained injuries and died on spot. Report of incident was

lodged at Police Station-Tekeriya. Being the legal representative of

deceased Khutiya Bai, the respondent No.1 filed a claim petition under

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, Mandla claiming Rs.19,50,000/-(Nineteen lacs Fifty Thousand

rupees), wherein it was alleged that at the time of incident, deceased was a

healthy lady aged about 65 years and was receiving income of Rs.8,000/-

per month from the work of labour and agriculture. Hence, prayed to

award the compensation as claimed in petition.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not contested the case before the

Claims Tribunal despite the service of notice and it was proceeded ex-

parte by the Tribunal on 11.10.2018.

3

4.

Appellant/Insurance Company in its written statement denied the

averments mentioned in the claim petition and pleaded that respondent

No.1 did not have a valid driving license to ride the alleged vehicle at the

time of the incident, which is the breach of Insurance Policy. Deceased

was an old lady aged about 70 years and she was incapable of doing any

work and that the claimant was not the dependent of the deceased. Report

was lodged day after the incident, which shows that the deceased did not

expire in the accident caused by offending vehicle but the nature of death

of deceased was natural or she died due to falling down or other reasons

and pleaded that vehicle No.MP-51-MB-4683 was falsely implicated in the

case to get the claim amount in connivance with respondent Nos.1 and 2,

hence, respondent No.3 has no liability to pay any compensation and prays

to dismiss the petition against the insurance company.

5.

Learned Claims Tribunal has framed the issues. Respondent No.1

(Jamni Bai) examined herself as AW-1 and other witness Johan Maravi as

AW-2 in support of his claim petition. Appellant/Non-applicant No.3 has

not produced any evidence in support of their pleadings. After considering

the evidence placed on the record and considering the argument advanced

by the learned counsel for the parties, learned Claims Tribunal has passed

the impugned award and has awarded compensation amount as mentioned

in para-1 of the order. Being aggrieved by the impugned award,

appellant/Insurance Company has preferred the present miscellaneous

appeal.

6.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award passed

by the learned Claims Tribunal is against the settled principle for grant of

compensation in the case of motor accidents. Learned Claims Tribunal has

erred in not taking into consideration the fact that the claim petition is

based on the fabricated and concocted documents and there was a

4

collusion between the owner of the vehicle and claimant. Learned Claims

Tribunal has grossly erred in considering the respondent No.1 as

dependent on the earnings of the deceased. Learned Claims Tribunal has

also erred in not distinguishing between Section 140 and Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘the Act’). Section 140 of the Act

contains that the amount of compensation is fixed i.e. Rs.50,000/- which is

just like estate, and for this amount, the