Findings of lower court reversed due to eye witnesses testimony.

GNANAPRAKASAM, J.

( 1 ) THE appellants in c. M. A. No. 481 of 1990 are the claimant nos. 1, 2 and 4 in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 307 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, which passed an order on 6. 9. 1988 awarding a sum of Rs. 64,800 as compensation, against the claim of Rs. 4,50,000 which is restricted to Rs. 2,50,000. Aggrieved by the said order, the claimants have preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

( 2 ) C. M. A. No. 1587 of 1995 is filed by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , which was the respondent No. 4 in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 307 of 1986 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam, as the Tribunal fastened 50 per cent of the liability to the appellant and to the owner of the vehicle, viz. , Parthasarathy, the appellant was aggrieved by the said order and filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

( 3 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred as they were arrayed in M. A. C. T. O. P. No. 307 of 1986.

( 4 ) THE deceased Padmarajan was the husband of the claimant No. 1 and father of the claimant No. 2 and son of the claimant nos. 3 and 4. Claimant No. 3 has not filed the appeal. Claimant No. 4 is the mother of the deceased.

( 5 ) THE case of the claimants is that on 10. 4. 1986, when Padmarajan was driving the goods vehicle bearing registration No. TMA 9259, the tractor bearing registration no. TNF 6717 and the trailer bearing registration No. TNF 6718 owned by the respondent No. 1, insured with the respondent no. 2, viz. , United India Insurance co. Ltd. came and dashed against the lorry and caused the accident, in which the lorry driver, viz. , Padmarajan died on the spot itself. The claimants are the dependants of the lorry driver, who have filed the claim petition.

( 6 ) THE respondent No. 1 contended that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and that, therefore, he was not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent No. 2 also contended that the accident has not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor. But it had taken place only due to the rashness and negligence of the lorry driver and, therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is not sustainable.

( 7 ) THE respondent No. 4 contended that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are alone liable to pay compensation and in any event, the amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive.

( 8 ) THE Tribunal, even after going through the first information report was not able to come to the conclusion who was actually responsible for the accident.

( 9 ) THE learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the evidence of pw 3, viz. , Janakiraman was not properly appreciated and considered by the Tribunal. But, on the other hand, the Tribunal has not placed much reliance upon the evidence of PW 3. It is, therefore, pointed out that the Tribunal was not correct in not having relied upon the evidence of PW 3, Janakiraman and it was pointed out he was an independent witness, who spoke the fact that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor, at the time when the tractor had taken a turn, came and dashed against the lorry which caused the accident. It is, therefore, submitted on behalf of the claimants that the findings of the Tribunal that the evidence of PW 3 cannot be relied upon is not proper.

( 10 ) THE evidence of Janakiraman, PW 3, is the evidence of eyewitness and it is cogent and natural. He also spoke how the accident has taken place which according to me can be safely accepted and that too in the absence of any contra evidence. Even in the cross-examination, he denied the question that he has not seen the accident and he was giving false evidence. The mere fact that he has not given any complaint to the police will not diminish the credibility of the witness to any extent as observed by the Tribunal. In the sa