An appellate court will not interfere with a tribunal's finding of forged insurance documents when the analysis of dates, national holidays, and mandatory pre-inspection reports confirms the fraud, nor will it disturb a reasonable assessment of income based on educational qualifications and judicial precedent.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 07.07.2023 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimants was allowed and appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle were made liable to pay the compensation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.10.2016, at about 9:30 P.M., the victim Rakesh Kumar had left the house of Mr. Dheeraj Sharma son of Sh. Bharat Krishan Sharma, resident of House No. 1362, Sector 17-C, Gurgaon on his motorcycle bearing registration No. HR-99-WT-TEMP-4763 for his house. When the victim reached ahead of MDI chowk towards Signature Tower, suddenly a truck came at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and high speed and hit the victim motorcycle from back side and due to the said accident the deceased received multiple and grievous injuries on his head, legs and all over his body. The respondent no.1/driver of the offending truck stop his truck after some distance from the accident spot and ran away leaving behind the said truck. Thereafter some passerby admitted the deceased in Kalyani Hospital, Gurgaon but the victim died on the way due to the injuries sustained in the said accident and the medical officer of the said Hospital declared the victim as brought dead.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident took place on dated 05.10.2016 at about 9:45 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HR-55N-0775 by respondent No.1 resulting into death of Rakesh Kumar son of Siyaram ? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable in the present form?OPR

4. Relief”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants and liability to pay compensation was fastened upon appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellants/driver and owner of the offending vehicle submits that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in fastening liability upon the appellant to satisfy the compensation awarded to the claimants/respondents No.1 to 4, on the untenable and erroneous premise that the insurance policy in question was forged. He further contends that such a finding is not only unsupported by cogent evidence on record but is also perverse in law and facts, having been arrived at without proper appreciation of the material placed before the Tribunal.

8. He further contends that the learned Tribunal has assessed the income of the deceased on an excessively inflated basis, without any reliable documentary proof, thereby leading to an unjust and disproportionate award of compensation. The said determination, according to the appellant, warrants interference and appropriate reduction.

9. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays tha