The main legal point established is that liability for compensation in a motor accident case can be established based on evidence of rash and negligent driving, and the burden of proof lies on the respondents to disprove the claimants' contentions.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the fair and decretal order, dated 17.12.2008 made in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2006, passed by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Dindigul.

2. The appellants are claimants in M.C.O.P.No.870 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District Judge, Dindigul.

3. Facts of the case:-

According to the appellants, one Muniyandi husband of the first appellant, father of appellants 2 to 5 and son of sixth appellant died in the accident that occurred on 11.06.2006, at 2.30 p.m., due to the rash and negligent driving by driver of the first respondent. According to the appellants, while the deceased was standing in front of S.S.Mani provision store, a lorry bearing registration No.TN-30-K-7913 belonging to the fifth respondent, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the TVS Super XL bearing registration No.TN-34-9651 and dashed against the deceased and others. Due to the same, the said Muniyandi sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. The owner of the TVS XL lodged a complaint before the Karumalaikoodal Police Station against the driver of the lorry. The deceased Muniyandi was the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle and was a mechanic and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. The appellants are the legal heirs and dependants of the deceased. They claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent is the owner of the lorry and the second respondent is the insurer of the lorry.

4. The first respondent remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent filed counter affidavit and denied all the averments and contended that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the deceased. The accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the lorry. There is a difference in the address of the deceased given in the FIR and address given in the claim petition. The appellant has to prove the age and income of the deceased.

6. Before the Tribunal, the first appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and third appellant was examined as P.W.2 and marked three documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P3. The second respondent did not let in any oral and documentary evidence.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellants did not prove that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of the first respondent and appellants have not explained the difference in the address given in the FIR and claim petition and other documents.

8. Aggrieved against the said order of dismissal, the appellants have come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the accident occurred only due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry. The Tribunal highly on technical grounds rejected the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. The respondents have not let in any evidence to disprove the contention of the appellants as to how the accident had occurred. The proceedings before the Tribunal is summary in nature. The Tribunal erroneously magnified the discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.1 and pleadings, dismissed the claim petition. Non mentioning of the presence of third appellant along with the deceased at the time of accident in the claim petition, is not a ground for rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2. P.W.1 has explained the discrepancy in the address. P.W.1 has stated that earlier they were residing in Govindapuram and subsequently, residing in the present address. The person, who lodged a complaint, knew only earlier address of the deceased and that cannot be put against the appellants. As per Ex.P3 Voter I.D., the age of the deceased is 58 years and as per the Post-mortem Certificate, the age is not correct