The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for corroborating oral and documentary evidence to establish negligence in a motor vehicle accident, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on a rough sketch drawn by the police.

1. Being aggrieved by the finding, fixing negligence on the driver of the Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-31-A-5599, insured with the appellant insurance Company and the consequential liability on the Company to pay compensation of Rs.1,32,500/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum, the quantum of the repair charges for the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 23 G 0164 owned by the first respondent.

2. The issue involved in this Appeal is whether negligence can be fixed on the driver of any vehicle involved in the accident on the sole basis of Rough sketch drawn by the police.

3. It is the case of the first respondent that on 26.04.2000, about 4.00 P.M, when the Government vehicle Tempo Traveller Van bearing Registration No.TN 23 G 0164 was proceeding on Trichy -Chennai Road near Chinnaru, from south to north, a lorry bearing Registration No. TN-31-A-5599, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, at a great speed collided with a Government vehicle, causing extensive damages to the Government vehicle. The vehicle was surveyed and the damages were assessed and approved by a surveyor. The Surveyor found that the extent of damages was to the tune of Rs.1,32,500/- Claiming damages, the first respondent preferred a claim petition. Disputing the manner of accident, the appellant insurance company submitted that when the lorry bearing registration No. TN-31-A-5599 insured with them was driven slowly, adhering to traffic rules, the driver of the Tempo Traveller Van bearing No.TN 23 G 0164, owned by the Government, driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, resulting in a head on collision. As the tempo traveller van happened to be a police vehicle, a case has been registered against the driver of the lorry. It is also submitted that the assessment of loss suffered by the vehicle, was biased. It is the further case that the Government Surveyor has not given a proper report. In the above said circumstances, the appellant/Insurance Company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Before the Claims Tribunal, Ex.P1- Xerox Copy of F.I.R., dated 26.04.2000, Ex.P2-Certified Copy of M.V.I. Report, dated 27.04.2000 and Ex.P3-Quotation dated 18.02.2002. Ex.P4-Photograph with negative of the damaged vehicle, Ex.P5-Xerox copy of the Insurance Policy of the vehicle TN 31 A 5599, Ex.P6-Xerox copy of the driving licence of Gunasekaran, dated 21.02.1995, Ex.P7-Xerox copy of R.C.Book of the Vehicle TN 23 G 0164, dated 25.04.1996, have been marked on the side of the first respondent, Ex.R1, dated 01.02.2007 , Ex.R2-Rough Sketch, have been marked on the side of the appellant insurance Company.

5. On the side of the first respondent, two witnesses have been examined. On the side of the appellant insurance company, the investigating officer has been examined as R.W.1.

6. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 31 A 5599 insured with the appellant and based on the assessment made by P.W.2, an approved Mechanic, quantified the compensation at Rs.1,32,500/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

7. Assailing the correctness of the finding fixing negligence on the driver of the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 31 A 5599 insured with appellant Company, Mr.S.Manohar, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company invited the attention of this Court, to the pleadings made in the claim petition and submitted that it was a head on collision on Trichy-Chennai High Road, when the vehicles were moving in the Opposite direction. He further submitted that the Claims Tribunal, has failed to consider the contents of Ex.P1-F.I.R, that the accident has occurred on the middle of the road and when Ex.R2-Sketch marked on the side of the Appellant/Insurance Company clearly indicates the position of the vehicles, the Claims Tribunal ought to have considered the same in proper perspective. Ac