- (1.) THE United India Insurance Company Limited has challenged the award dated 26.9.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Additional District & Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur, whereby he has granted a compensation of Rs.26,000/ - along with an interest of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition i.e. 25.11.2011, to the claimant -respondent, Puranmal.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2011, Puranmal and his wife were returning back, on his motorcycle, from the Sewar Military Canteen. As soon as they left the Mahua Sinpini village, suddenly a Marshal Jeep bearing registration No.RJ05 -U -0197, being driven rashly and negligently, came from behind and hit the motorcycle. Consequently, both Puranmal and his wife, Safedi, suffered grievous injuries. While Puranmal survived, Safedi expired. Therefore, Puranmal and other legal representatives filed two separate claim petitions, one for the death of Safedi, and the other for the injuries suffered by Puranmal. The learned Tribunal consolidated both the claim petitions. In order to substantiate his case, the claimant -respondent examined a single witness and submitted thirty -one documents. In turn, the Insurance Company examined a single witness, but did not submit any document. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence this appeal by the Insurance Company.
(3.) MR . Sukhram Jatav, the learned counsel for the appellant, has vehemently contended that on the date of the alleged incident itself, a roznamcha was recorded by Deshraj Singh, Assistant Sub -Inspector. According to the roznamcha, the accident had occurred not because of the Marshal Jeep, but due to another motorcycle. The said roznamcha was submitted before the learned Tribunal. But despite this fact the learned Tribunal has concluded that the accident had occurred between the motorcycle being driven by Puranmal and the Marshal Jeep. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the learned Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the roznamcha, which was submitted before it. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. Secondly, relying on the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pawan Kumar Tikkiwal and others, 2007 ACJ 2570 the learned counsel has contended that the claimant has changed the entire story. Therefore, the claim petition ought to have been dismissed.;