The 2nd respondent-Insurer among the two respondents including owner of Tata Sumo bearing No. TN 01 M 3066 impugning the award dated 29.03.2007 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Addl. District Judge, Tirupati ( for short, ‘Tribunal’) , in M.V.O.P.No.411 of 2003 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) , by the 5 claimants, no other than wife, two minor children and parents of the deceased by name G.Ashok, aged about 33 years as per the Ex.A.3 postmortem report, of the claim maintained for Rs.9,00,000/ -, since awarded by the tribunal by its award dated 29.03.2007 of Rs.7,11,400/ - with interest at 7.5%p.a. by fixing liability against both the respondents, preferred the appeal with the contentions in the grounds of appeal vis-à-vis submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurer-appellant that the accident itself is a false one by implication of the vehicle of the 1st respondent and P.W.2 is though not an eye witness and even not informed to the police for registering Ex.A.1 FIR and cited in the chargesheet as L.W.15 as if one of the eye witnesses, the tribunal believed the version of P.W.1 and did not properly appreciate the evidence of R.W.1-employee of the Insurer and R.W.2 the then Sub Inspector of Police. Thereby the award of the tribunal is liable to be set aside by allowing the appeal.
