: Existing medical evidence is crucial in proving an accident and claiming compensation.

The appellant / claimant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2009, made in M.C.O.P.No.295 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur.

2. The short facts of the case are as follows:-

The claimant had filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.295 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Perambalur, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

3. It was submitted that on 01.02.2007, at about 21.30 hours, when the claimant along with his friend were standing at Madhanagopalapuram, opposite to Vijay Saloon, Perambalur Old Bus Stand, the first respondent's auto bearing registration No.TN46 B4393, coming in the same direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant and caused the accident. The claimant sustained multiple and grievous injuries all over his body, left hand fracture, left eye, ear, lips injured. He was admitted at Perambalur Government Hospital, wherein he received treatment as an inpatient. At the time of accident, the claimant was working as a salesman in Tasmac Wine Shop and earning Rs.3,000/-per month. Due to the disability sustained by him in the accident, he is unable to do his normal work. Hence, the claimant had filed the claim petition against the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the auto bearing registration No.TN46 B4393.

4. The second respondent Insurance Company, in their counter affidavit, had submitted that the driver of the first respondent's vehicle did not have a valid license and badge to drive the passenger vehicle at the time of accident. Further, it was submitted that the driver of the first respondent's auto had not been rash and negligent in his driving and that the accident was caused only as the claimant, who was intoxicated, had crossed the road suddenly, without seeing the on coming vehicle. It was submitted further that there was a delay of a day in filing the FIR and that the complaint was given only on 05.02.2007 and as such it is evident that the vehicle had been collusively added for the purpose of claim. The averments made in the claim petition regarding age, income, occupation, nature of injuries, medical treatment taken and disability were also not admitted. It was submitted that the claim was excessive.

5. On considering the averments of both sides, the Tribunal had framed two issues for consideration namely:

i. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver? and

ii. Whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation? If so, two what extent?

6. On the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and four documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P4 namely copy of FIR, wound certificate, disability certificate and X'ray. On the side of the respondents, no witness was let in and copy of accident register was marked as Ex.R1.

7. P.W.1 had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of his evidence, he had marked Exs.P1 to P4 and he had stated that the accident had occurred on 01.02.2007, at about 21.30 hours. But, as per Ex.P2 wound certificate, it is seen that the accident had occurred on 02.02.2007, at about 09.30 p.m., and that intimation was given to the Police on 05.02.2007.

8. The Tribunal opined that the claimant had not filed sufficient documents to prove the exact date of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.R1 accident register filed by the respondent, it is seen that the accident had occurred on 02.02.2007. The Tribunal had observed that the claimant had not given any explanation for the delay in filing the case only on 05.02.2007. Hence, the Tribunal, on holding that there is a discrepancy in the statements contained in the F.I.R., and accident register as to the