Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90635 Court No. - 48 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2103 of 2010 Appellant :- Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Smt. Rekha Sharma And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amaresh Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- Arjun Singhal alongwith Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2182 of 2010 Appellant :- Rekha Sharma Respondent :- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Arjun Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- Santosh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard Sri Anubhav Sinha, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Amaresh Sinha, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for claimant. 2. First Appeal From Order No. 2103 of 2010 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of Oriental Insurance Company against the judgment and award dated 02.04.2010 passed by Special Judge (Anti Corruption Act)/ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Meerut in M.A.C.P. No.424 of 2006 (Smt. Rekha Sharma vs. Sri Tilak Raj and another), by which compensation of Rs. 2,71,000/- alongwith 6% interest has been awarded to the claimant-respondent no. 1 on account of injuries received by her in a road accident, which was occurred on 18.01.2006. 3. First Appeal from Order No. 2182 of 2010 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been filed on behalf of claimant- appellant for enhancement of compensation against the same judgment and award dated 02.04.2010 passed in M.A.C.P. No.424 of 2006. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of insured vehicle in the accident, as the first information report was lodged after about three months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The delay in lodging the first information report has not been properly explained by claimant. It is further submitted that a very excessive compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal whereas there was no loss of earning capacity to the claimant-respondent. 5. On the other hand, Sri Arjun Singhal, learned counsel for claimant-respondent submits that the F.I.R. was lodged through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Since F.I.R. was not registered by the concerned police station, the claimant-respondent has no option to approach the Court by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that Investigating Officer, after due investigation, has submitted charge-sheet against the motorcyclist. Involvement of insured motorcycle as well as factum of the accident was fully proved by the claimant- respondent by producing cogent evidence and the claim has rightly been passed against the Insurance Company. 6. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Record shows that the accident was occurred on 18.01.2006 and the F.I.R. was lodged on 23.04.2006 after about three months through an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer, after due investigation has submitted charge- sheet against the rider of insured motorcycle. The claimant herself was appeared as PW-1 and has also produced PW-2-Anshul Sharma, who was also eye witness of the accident. Both the witnesses had fully proved the involvement of insured motorcycle in the accident as well as rash and negligent driving of motorcyclist. The Insurance Company has not led any evidence in rebuttal and even the rider of motorcycle was not produced before the Claims Tribunal. 8. The Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No. 1 has recorded the finding that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of motorcyclist and finding of Claims Tribunal is based on evidence and materials which are available on record and there is no illegality in any manner. 9. So far as quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant aged about 45 years had received injuries in the accident and has become permanent disabled to the extent of 30%. The claimant has failed to prove her income by producing cogent evidence and the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed the income as 5,000/- per month from tuition. The Claims Tribunal had accepted 30% loss of earning capacity on relying the disability certificate, which discloses the disability to the extent of 30%. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is almost just and proper and no ground for enhancement is made out. The judgment and award of Claims Tribunal is based on evidence and a very just compensation was awarded. No ground for interference is made out and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. Both the appeals are hereby dismissed. 11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Order Date :- 27.5.2025/Ruhi H. Digitally signed by :- RUHI HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad