HARKESH MANUJA, J.

1. By this common judgment, two appeals arising out of the same award dated 21.12.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala (for short, “the Tribunal”), are being decided. The first appeal has been preferred by the claimants/appellants seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas the second appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the findings on negligence as well as fastening of liability upon it.

FACTS

2. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeals are that on 10.09.2008, deceased Karamjit Singh along with his brother Shashi Kumar and friend Ranjit Singh were returning from a marriage function at Taj Palace, Bhawanigarh Road, Samana on a Ghora Baggi/Tonga. At about 11:30 PM, when they reached near Samana Steel Factory on Patiala-Samana Road, an Eicher Truck bearing registration No. PB-10-BF-6053, being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, came from the opposite direction and struck against the Tonga. Resultantly, Karamjit Singh fell on the road and was crushed under the offending vehicle, leading to his death at the spot.

3. The claimants, namely widow and minor children of the deceased, filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. On the basis of pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and after appreciating the evidence on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.5,30,720/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of petition till realization.

4. Aggrieved by the award dated 21.12.2011, both the parties preferred the present appeals before this Court. The claimants/appellants filed the appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal was inadequate. On the other hand, the Insurance Company filed the connected appeal assailing the impugned award on the grounds of negligence as well as fastening of liability on it.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellants submitted that the learned Tribunal rightly recorded finding on Issue No.1 after proper appreciation of evidence. It was argued that testimony of PW1-Shashi Kumar remained unshaken during cross-examination and there was no reason for the claimants to falsely implicate the offending vehicle. Learned counsel further contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was grossly inadequate and deserves substantial enhancement.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No.3/INSURANCE COMPANY.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal gravely erred in relying upon testimony of alleged eye-witness Shashi Kumar, who being the real brother of the deceased was an interested witness. It was argued that the FIR did not contain complete registration number of the offending vehicle and the statement of Shashi Kumar was recorded belatedly. He further submitted that the documentary evidence produced by the respondents clearly established that the vehicle in question was elsewhere at the relevant time and therefore, the involvement of the offending vehicle remained doubtful.

DISCUSSION AND REASONING

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book of the case.

8. The first question that arises for consideration is with regard to the involvement of the offending vehicle and negligence of its driver. PW1-Shashi Kumar categorically deposed that he was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident and the offending Eicher Truck bearing No. PB-10-BF-6053 struck against their Tonga due to rash and negligent driving of its driver. His testimony finds corroboration from the FIR lodged promptly after the occurrence as well as from the post mortem report. Merely because PW1 happened to be brother of the deceased cannot be a ground to discard