- (1.) SHRIRAM General Insurance Company is aggrieved by the award dated 30.10.2013 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 14,84,240/ - to the claimants -respondents for the death of Prem Prakash Mankani.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts of the case are that on 21.9.2011, around 1:30 PM, Prem Prakash Mankani was going on his Scooter. While he was riding his scooter, one Dinesh Maheshwari came on his scooter, which was being driven rashly and negligently, and collided with the scooter being driven by Prem Prakash Mankani. Consequently, Mr. Prem Prakash Mankani suffered grievous injury on his head. Four days later, during his treatment, he expired in the hospital. Since, the claimants -respondents lost the sole bread earner of the family, they filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support their case, they examined two witnesses including Mrs. Jaya Mankani, and submitted few documents. After going through oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal by the Insurance Company.
(3.) MR . Virendra Agrawal, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions before this Court: - Firstly, although, accident had occurred on 21.9.2011, the FIR was not lodged till 24.9.2011. There is an inordinate delay of three days in lodging of FIR. Secondly, although, the FIR was lodged by Mr. Prem Prakash Mankani's uncle, Mr. Nevandram, but Nevandram has never been produced as witness before the learned Tribunal. Thirdly, although, Manoj Kumar (A.W.2) has been produced as an eyewitness of the alleged accident, but he is an unreliable witness. According to him, he had noted the registration number of the offending vehicle; he had informed the family members of Mr. Prem Prakash Mankani about the number of the offending vehicle. But still the FIR was not lodged for three days. Further he claims to be a neighbour of Mr. Prem Prakash Mankani. Therefore, he is a fabricated witness. Fourthly, according to the bed -head ticket of Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Ajmer, Mr. Mankani had merely suffered a head injury. But the bed -head ticket does not reveal the fact that he had suffered the injury in a road accident. Fifthly, according to the claimants themselves, it was a head -on collision. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was not justified in holding the offending vehicle as solely responsible for the alleged accident. In fact, it is a case of contributory negligence. However, the learned Tribunal has failed to hold Mr. Prem Prakash Mankani as partly liable for the accident. Lastly, the learned Tribunal has erred in relying upon the income tax returns filed by the claimants, and has incorrectly assessed his income. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award as well as the record of the case, which was produced by the learned counsel for the appellant himself.;