JASPREET SINGH,J. - (1.) Heard Shri Anil Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri R.U. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the claimants respondents No.1 and 2. None appeared on behalf of the respondents No.3 and 4 and accordingly, the appeal has been heard ex-parte against them.
(2.) The appellant Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 06.01.2005 passed in M.A.C.P. No.85/1998, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,82,000/- along with 6% interest in favour of the claimants on account of death of their son Photo.
(3.) The ground of challenge by the learned counsel for the appellant is that in respect of the same incident, two FIRs were lodged wherein two separate tractor numbers were mentioned, which is said to be involved in the accident. Moreover, the names of the drivers of the tractor mentioned in both the FIRs, was also different. It is urged that the Tribunal without looking into the material on record has merely relied upon the statement of the owner Mohd. Yasin that it was the Tractor No.UP-44-A-9784, which was involved in the accident and that it was being driven by his driver Kadir Khan @ Kabir. It has further been submitted that initially the FIR was against Tractor No.UP-44-A-9667 and it was stated that it was being driven by Mohd. Aziz Khan, who was handicapped and, therefore, neither the aforesaid tractor No.UP-44-A-9667 was ever insured nor the alleged driver could have been driving, therefore, this discrepancy has escaped the attention of the Tribunal.;