SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SEEMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present appeal has been directed against award dated 2.5.2019 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat (in short "the Tribunal") whereby compensation has been assessed on account of death of Deepak Sharma in a motor vehicular accident that took place on 31.12.2016.

(2.) Counsel for the insurance company-appellant would inform that appeal has been filed to assail findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 1 and quantum of compensation. To bring home his contention, it is argued that FIR Ex. P1 was registered at the behest of Omkar PW1 against unknown car and unknown driver. Omkar PW1 in his cross examination had admitted that he had not disclosed registration number of the car at the time of lodging FIR nor he had seen model of the vehicle. The claimants examined another witness namely Raj Kumar alias Raju PW3 to prove that accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending car by Parveen respondent No. 1 therein. It is argued that as per testimony of Raj Kumar alias Raju in cross examination, the car driver stopped his car within the sight of the witness and also alighted from the same but fled away with his car on seeing many people gathered on the spot. It is vehemently argued that had it been true that car driver stopped the car and alighted from the same, there was no reason for the people in the gathering not to catch the driver on the spot. It is further argued that this circumstance alone is sufficient to create doubt in testimony of Raj Kumar alias Raju PW3 that either he was present at the spot or had noticed particulars of the offending vehicle.

(3.) The appellant has also challenged quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal. It is argued that claim has been preferred by the widow and two children of the deceased but father of deceased has been impleaded as proforma respondent. It is further argued that there is no satisfactory much less cogent evidence on record that father of deceased had any disability to render him dependent on his son, therefore, admissible deduction for personal and living expenses should be 1/3rd in place 1/4th.