The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly regarding the liability to pay compensation in case of death or grievous injury in a motor vehicle accident.

1. The appellant/2nd respondent has preferred the present appeal in C.M.A.No.1930 of 2009, against the judgment and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

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

The petitioners, who are the wife and daughter of the (deceased) Adhimoolam have filed the claim in M.C.O.P.No.155 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the said Adhimoolam in a Motor Vehicle Accident. It was submitted that on 13.03.1999, at about 4.30 hours, when the deceased was walking on the extreme left of the Vegetable Market, Nehru Street, Tindivanam, the 1st respondent's Auto bearing Registration No.TN-32-Y-4842, coming in the opposite direction and driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the (deceased) Adhimoolam. As a result, the (deceased) sustained grievous injuries and was admitted at Government Hospital, Tindivanam and after prolonged treatment, had subsequently died in his house on 15.08.1999. At the time of accident, the deceased was working as a Vegetable vendor and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, the petitioners have filed the claim against the 1st and 2nd respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the Auto bearing Registration No.TN-32-Y-4842.

3. The 2nd respondent, in his counter has denied the averments in the claim regarding age, income and occupation of the deceased Adhimoolam. It was submitted that the petitioners should prove that they are the legal heirs of the deceased through documentary evidence. It was submitted that the injured Adhimoolam had died long after the accident and as such his death was not caused due to injuries sustained in the accident and as such the petitioners cannot claim compensation. It was contended that the autopsy was not conducted by Government Doctors to show the cause of death. It was submitted that the accident was not caused due to any negligence on the part of the 1st respondent's Auto driver and was caused only due to negligence of the deceased. It was submitted that the claim was excessive. In its additional counter it was stated that the 1st respondent's vehicle was not involved in the accident. It was submitted that the complaint was lodged at the police station on 20.03.1999 by 8.30 hours, but the accident took place on 13.03.1999 at about 4.30 hours. It was submitted that the claimants colluding with the 1st respondent had falsely filed a claim to get illegal gratification from the Insurance Company.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal framed three issues for consideration in the case namely:-

(1) Was the accident caused by the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the 1st respondent's Auto?

(2) Did the deceased Adhimooolam die due to injuries sustained in the accident? And

(3) What is the quantum of compensation which the petitioners are entitled to get?

5. On the petitioners side, two witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P6 namely: Ex.P1-Copy of F.I.R.; Ex.P2-Copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report; Ex.P3-Copy of Criminal Court judgment; Ex.P4-Copy of Wound Certificate issued to Adhimoolam at Tindivanam Government Hospital; Ex.P5-Death Certificate; and ExP6-Expert opinion certificate given by Dr. Ramanujam. On the respondents side, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

6. PW1, the 1st petitioner had adduced evidence which is corroborative of the statements made in the claim regarding manner of accident and in support of her claim had marked Exhibits P1 to P6. The Tribunal, on scrutiny of Ex.P1, it is seen that the F.I.R. had been filed on 20.03.1999, i.e. after a week from the date of accident. On scrutiny of Ex.P3, it is seen that the 1st respondent's Auto driver had been punished before the Criminal Court. The Tribunal, on