The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of fraud and collusion must be substantiated by reliable evidence, and quoting a wrong provision of law shall not be the ground on which the relief sought for could be rejected.

1. The NewIndia Assurance Company Limited represented by its Branch Manager, Perambalur Branch, which figured as respondent No.2 before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.71 of 2004, is the appellant herein. The first respondent herein preferred a claim on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Perambalur against the second respondent herein and the appellant herein being the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation for the injuries allegedly sustained by him in an accident that allegedly took place on 25.01.2004 at about 2.30 p.m. near Valikandapuram within the jurisdiction of Mangalamedu police station.

2. It was the contention of the first respondent herein/claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that while he was proceeding on the Trichy-Chennai NH road in the direction of South to North at a place called Valpattarai on the South of Valikandanpuram in his T.V.S. 50 two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-45-W-5084 keeping one Ramakrishnan, who is relative of the claimant as pillion rider, a Tata 407 Van bearing Registration No.TN-46-9451 belonging to the second respondent herein/first respondent in the M.C.O.P., which came in the very same direction, hit his T.V.S. 50 vehicle from behind due to the rash and negligent driving of the said Van by its driver, as a result of which, both the first respondent herein and the pillion rider Ramakrishnan were thrown away from their vehicle. It was also contended that in the said accident the first respondent herein/claimant suffered fractures on the right little finger, on the finger next to right little finger and on the right clavicle bone besides other injuries of various dimensions on the head and other parts of the body; that he was initially treated at Government Hospital, Perambalur and subsequently treated at a private hospital; that despite treatment, he suffered permanent disability and that hence he was constrained to make a claim for compensation against the second respondent herein and the appellant herein, who were the owner and insurer of the above said offending vehicle at the time of occurrence. It was also the averment made by the first respondent/claimant that the accident happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tata 407 Van bearing Registration No.TN-46-9451 and that hence the second respondent and the appellant herein were liable to pay compensation.

3. The claim was not resisted by the owner of the offending vehicle viz., the second respondent herein, who figured as the first respondent in the M.C.O.P. The appellant herein, which figured as the second respondent in the M.C.O.P. being the insurer, contested the claim not only on the grounds available to it under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) but also on other grounds available to the owner of the vehicle after getting a permission under Section 170 of the Act. It was contended by the insurer viz., the appellant herein/the second respondent in the M.C.O.P. that the alleged accident was not a true one; that the vehicle belonging to the second respondent herein (the first respondent in the M.C.O.P.) was not at all involved in the alleged accident; that the claim was made as a result of a collusion between the first respondent herein/claimant and the second respondent herein/first respondent in the M.C.O.P. (owner of the vehicle) and that hence the claim made by the first respondent/claimant against the appellant herein (second respondent in the M.C.O.P.) should be dismissed. It was also the contention of the appellant herein/second respondent in the M.C.O.P. that the vehicle in question was not covered by a policy of the insurance company issued by the appellant herein/second respondent in the M.C.O.P.; that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle belonging to the second respondent herein/first respondent in the M.C.O.P.; that the rider of the