The main legal point established in the judgment is that the liability to pay compensation in a motor accident case is determined based on the insurance status of the vehicle and the cause of the accident.

This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed by the appellant/second respondent against the decree and judgment passed in MCOP NO.93 of 2001 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Sub Court, Cheyyar dated 31.03.2004, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition till date of payment of compensation.

2. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment, the appellant/second respondent, the National Insurance Company Limited has filed the appeal before this Court.

3. The History of the case is as follows;-

On 18.04.1999, at about 01.30 a.m. in the wee hours, the vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.TN-25-Y-0347 was driven by its driver Palani and the petitioner travelled in the said car. When the said car was nearing an area between Akkur joint road and Mangal village, an iron rod broke in the car and so the vehicle had gone out of control. The driver of the vehicle, Palani, asked Mubarak Ali, who travelled in the vehicle, to jump from the car. Mubarak Ali jumped from the car and following him, the driver also jumped from the car. Then the car proceeded on the right side and fell into a pit. The driver, Palani and Mubarak Ali sustained injuries and they reached Government Hospital, Vandavasi through a lorry. The petitioner sustained injuries on left leg knee, on the chest, right leg knee, on the forearm, right cheek, right leg toe.

Regarding the said occurrence, the claimant/petitioner had lodged a complaint with Thusi Police Station. The said complaint was registered in Cr.No.165 of 1999 on an alleged offence under Sections 279 and 337 of I.P.C. The petitioner is a driver and his income is Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to this accident, he did not go to his job. As such, he has lost an income of Rs.30,000/-. Further, the petitioner has spent Rs.20,000/- on medical expenses. Further, the petitioner claims compensation for continuing pain and suffering and loss of income, in total Rs.2,00,000/- in his claim petition. The claim petition has been filed against the first respondent, one Vakulamala, who is the owner of the vehicle and the second respondent, National Insurance Company Limited, who is the insurer of the vehicle. As such, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

.4. The second respondent/National Insurance Company Limited, Vellore has filed counter statement and resisted the claim of the petitioner. The second respondent has alleged in their counter statement that the vehicle was not insured with them. Further, the respondent opposed the age and income of the petitioner. Without supporting documents, the petitioner has claimed compensation. The rash and negligent driving of the petitioner is the cause of the accident and further the petitioner has suffered only minor injuries. The petitioner has created false documents regarding age and income to claim compensation against the insurance company. The second respondent, pointed out that the petitioner can claim compensation against the owner of the Vehicle under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

5. The other person who travelled in the said vehicle also filed claim petition in MCOP No.94 of 2001 against the same respondents for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal passed a common order in both claim cases.

6. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed two issues namely,

1) Whether the vehicle involved in the said accident belongs to the first respondent?

2) If the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the claimant and if so, what is the quantum of compensation?

7. On the side of claimants, common evidence was recorded by the Tribunal. The claimant PW1, one Palani, who is the claim petitioner in MCOP No.93 of 2001 was examined. PW2, Mubarak ali, the claimant in MCOP NO.94 of 2001 was examined. On the side of the claimant/petitioner, five documents were marked namely,

1) first information report marked