The court emphasized the importance of establishing the cause of the accident and the liability of the insurance company in motor accident compensation claims.

T. Krishnavalli, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Karur, dated 27.08.2010 made in MCOP No. 87 of 2006.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 04.08.2001 at about 24 hours in Jawahar Bazar near Taluk Office, Karur, when R.S. Sahadevan was travelling as pillion rider in his Scooty from west to east, which was driven by one Viswam, at that time, the TVS Suzuki Motor Cycle TN-47-E-5225, which was coming just behind the Scooty in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against it. In that process, R.S. Sahadevan fell down on the road and sustained multiple grievous injuries all over the body and immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Karur and then, he was referred to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore on 04.08.2001, where he took treatment till 10.09.2001. The claimant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

3. Before the tribunal, on the side of the claimant, 3 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW3 and marked 19 documents. On the side of the Insurance Company, one witness was examined as RW1 and no document was marked.

4. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle has not caused the accident and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimant R.S. Sahadevan died and hence, his legal heirs were brought on record as appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants argued as follows:-

That the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation as claimed by the claimant, as the claimant has spent more than Rs.9 Lakhs for medical treatment and due to the accident, he was not able to do any work; that though, the second respondent Insurance Company disputed the manner of the accident, they failed to establish the same before the tribunal; that though the first respondent was made as a party, who is the cause for the accident, he failed to appear before the trial Court and set ex-parte; that the Doctor's disability Certificate (Ex.P17) certifies that the percentage of the claimant's disability is 60%; that immediately after the accident, a case was registered in respect of the accident and as such, the Insurance Company cannot dispute the accident and the sufferings of the claimant due to the accident; that the petition came to be filed after consulting the first respondent, who is possessing valid driving licence and Insurance Policy for his vehicle, in order to get compensation and that the first respondent admitted his crime in the criminal case and paid the fine. Thus, he submitted that in view of the above circumstances, the order of the tribunal is liable to be set aside and the appeal has to be allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent argued in support of the findings of the tribunal.

7. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8. It is seen from the records that the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that no such accident has occurred as per the version of the claimant. In this case, the claimant is the injured and he was examined as PW1. PW2 is the owner of the vehicle, in which PW1 travelled as pillion rider.

9. PW1 during his evidence stated that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. PW2 also deposed that the accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle.

10. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company argued that the Insurance Company has got every reason to suspect the bona fide of the claimant and there must be a foul played in collusion with the first respondent and the rider of the Scooty driven the vehicle in a drunken mood and