The claimant's evidence from FIR, Charge Sheet, and Judgment of Criminal Court established the Insurance Company's liability for compensation, and the court confirmed the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the Decree and Judgment dated 28.12.2005 made in MCOP No.308 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Additional Sub Court), Gobichettipalayam. Aggrieved against the award of the tribunal, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. According to the Insurance Company, they deny both the liability as well as the quantum. The liability is denied on the ground that in the FIR, the vehicle number has not been mentioned and it is only mentioned as unidentified lorry dashed against the deceased and went away without stopping. But subsequently in the charge sheet, the vehicle number has been included for which there is no evidence. Even though the driver of the lorry has accepted the offence and paid the fine, that by itself would not amount to the Insurance Company accepting the liability as the criminal court case judgment is not binding on the Civil Court and there is no independent evidence to show that the vehicle has been involved and failed to prove the involvement of the vehicle. As far as the quantum is concerned, there is no independent evidence to fix the the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and there is no evidence or document produced to fix the same. Therefore, aggrieved against the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal.

3. The respondent/claimant would contend that the accident took place on 12.02.2002 at about 2.00 p.m. while the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider on Motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN37 – 4727 which was driven by one Ramakrishnan. While the motor cycle was proceeding from Bannari to Sathiamangalam main road, from west to east on the extreme right of the road, the first respondent driver of the lorry came from east to west in a high speed driven in a rash and negligent manner without following the traffic rules and dashed against the motor cycle. Due to the accident, the deceased who was a pillion rider sustained head injury and he was taken to Government Hospital, Sathiamangalam where he succumbed to death. The deceased was aged 53 years old and a case was registered in Crime No.81 of 2002 under Section 304 of IPC and thereafter the driver was convicted for the offence for imprisonment till the raising of the Court as well a fine of Rs.3,500/-in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment. The Judgment of the Criminal Court is marked as Ex.A7, the Charge Sheet is marked as Ex.A6 and the FIR is marked as Ex.A1. These documents would prove that the accident has taken place. It is also the fact that he was running a Maligai Shop and Kerosene Shop and he was earning a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month and the respondents/claimants are the legal representatives. The deceased was aged about 53 years for which there is no dispute and the Postmortem Certificate also certifies the age as 53 years and by applying the theory of 1/3rd deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the tribunal has rightly granted the compensation and hence the appeal has to be dismissed and in so far as the liability is concerned for the Ipse Dixit of RW1 that the accident has not been proved and that the vehicle involved has not been sufficiently proved, there is no independent evidence to show or prove that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and therefore the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion and passed the award which has to be affirmed by this Court.

4. Heard both the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company as well as the respondents/claimants.

5. The points for consideration in this appeal are -

[a] Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation as the liability is questioned ?

[b] Whether the compensation awarded is correct ?

6. As far as the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company is with respect to dispute in liability. He would only contend that in the FI