- (1.) The instant civil misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the impugned award dated 14.5.2004 passed by the MACT, Beawar, District, Ajmer, in claim case No.189/2001, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation under different heads in favour of claimant-appellants.
(2.) The brief facts as emerging on the face of record are that two claim petitions under Section 140/166 of the M.V. Act regarding the same incident/accident came to be filed by different claimants before the Tribunal, which were heard together and decided by a common order by the Tribunal. The claim petition relating to the present appeal had been filed before the Tribunal with the allegations that on 27.3.2001 deceased Santosh Kumar employee of Manglam Automobile on instruction was going from Ajmer to Beawar on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No. RJ-01-E0021 of his employer with normal speed, cautiously and when he reached Kesarpura at about 4 P.M. then a Truck bearing No. H.R.45/1505 being driven with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the driver non-petitioner No.1 collided with the motorcycle, as a result of which the motorcycle got damaged and Santosh Kumar sustained grievous injuries and succumbing to the injuries died. Report of the incident was lodged at the police station upon which a FIR bearing No.52/2001 was registered at Police Station Mangliyavas(Ajmer) and after investigation charge-sheet was presented against non-petitioner No.1 before the competent court. A claim of Rs.20,60,000/- was claimed as compensation on account of death of Santosh Kumar in the accident.
(3.) The non-petitioner No. 3 Insurance Company filed their reply to the claim petition stating therein that the burden to prove the name, age and monthly income of the deceased, address, rested upon the claimant so also the burden to prove the facts relating to the accident, but it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with them. It was pleaded that the claimants made an exorbitant claim for which they were not entitled. It was further asserted that the insurer had violated the conditions of the insurance policy by not informing about the incident to the Insurance Company.;