Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Sections 166 & 173—Award of compensation—Appeal—Plea of insurance company qua false implication of vehicle in question as there is no eye-witnesses to the incident—Where an accident takes place in a lonely place, it is highly difficult for the investigation agency to investigate the matter especially be examining the eye-witness—Driver is the one person who could have thrown some light about the incident apart from the injured person who was also eye-witnesses to the incident—Unless some material is available on record which would compel the court to come to a conclusion that there is an active collusion between the injured persons, driver and owner of the vehicle only to lay a false claim of compensation from the Insurance Company by falsely implicating the vehicle, formal proof in the form of police records would be sufficient enough for the Tribunal to come to a conclusion that the claimant has proved his case that he suffered injuries in the road traffic accident—When the material on record is analyzed, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the police records and in the absence of any compelling reasons which would atleast indicate active collusion between the claimants and the owner of the TATA ACE vehicle or the driver, has allowed the claim petitions—Even after re-appreciation of the material on record, no legal infirmity or perversity found in recording such findings by the Trial Court—Appeals dismissed.
[Paras 10 to 19]