Mrs. Pooja Arora, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in regard to the accident in question on 15.10.2006 at 5:00 p.m at Bangarmau, Unnao near Bajpai Kheda,the F.I.R. was lodged by the brother of the deceased Sundar namely Shiv Lal on 16.10.2006. As per the F.I.R., the accident had occurred by motor cycle No.U.P.32 AB 4083 on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle and the brother of the deceased was accompanying the deceased at the time of accident but the number of vehicle was changed during investigation and the accident has been shown in the chargesheet from Motor cycle No U.P. 35 AG 1834. She further submits that an eye witness P.W.2 Rahul Kumar was produced and Shiv Lal, the brother of the deceased who has lodged the F.I.R. was not produced, therefore, the involvement of the vehicle in question is doubtful. She further submits that the eye witness Rahul Kumar has specifically stated that the brother of the deceased was not accompanying him at the time of accident, which is contrary to the F.I.R. She further submits that the age of the deceased has wrongly been determined between 46-50 years, whereas as per date of birth recorded in the adhar card,which was not disputed by anybody comes to 60 years. Therefore the compensation awarded is also on the higher side.
