The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to consider the type of insurance policy and the liability of the insurer in hit and run cases, as well as the possibility of claiming just compensation under relevant sections of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned fair and decretal order dated 6.08.2007 (referred to as impugned order) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Erode District (Referred to as the Tribunal) in M.C.O.P No.79 of 2005.

2. By an order dated 06.08.2007, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. This is an unfortunate case of hit and run case. The appellant was perhaps unable to lay a legitimate claim against the lorry owner its insurer as the lorry sped away after hitting the motor cycle on which the appellant was a pillion rider and got injured. Therefore, claim was made against the insurer of the motor cycle and the legal representatives of the deceased rider Magudeeswaran.

4. The motor cycle was owned and driven by the deceased Magudeeswaran on 5.11.2004 when the accident is said to have taken place at about 8.45 p.m.

5. While the deceased Magudeeswaran died on the spot of the accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries to his body, resulting in hospitalization, surgery amputation of legs and medical expenses therewith and consequential loss of earning for a year.

6. Ex.P-1, First Information Report is said to have been filed by the 1st respondent, the father of the deceased Magudeeswaran with the jurisdictional Police Station, pursuant to which a statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was obtained from the appellant. The 2nd respondent is the mother of the deceased Magudeeswaran while the 3rd respondent is the insurance company with which the accident motor cycle was insured.

7. The appellant-claimant filed a claim petition for Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 under the following heads:

1	Loss of earning	Rs. 48,000/-
2	Partial loss of earnings	Nil
3	Transport to Hospital	Rs. 1,000/-
4	Extra Nourishment	Rs. 10,000/-
5	Damage to clothing and articles	Rs. 1,000/-
6	Others medical expenses	Rs.1,00,000/-
7	Compensation for pain and sufferings	Rs. 40,000/-
8	Compensation for continuing as permanent disability, if any	Rs. 80,000
9	Compensation for the loss of earning power	Rs.2,20,000/-
	Total	Rs.5,00,000/-

8. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record concluded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the speeding lorry coming from the opposite direction and caused fatal accident involving the death of the deceased Magudeeswaran and injury to the appellant.

9. On the other hand, the appellant-claimant would state that but for negligence of the deceased rider Magudeeswaran, the accident would not have taken place and therefore claimed compensation from the insurer of the motor cycle viz., 3rd respondent-Insurance Company.

10. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the 3rd respondent.

11. The Tribunal has considered Ex.P1 FIR and other evidence on record and has concluded that the accident was on account of the rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry which sped away after the accident and therefore the 3rd respondent was not liable to pay the compensation to the appellant.

12. The case of the appellant is that none of the evidence relied by the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company disproves the statement of the appellant that the accident took place involving the motor cycle belonging to the deceased Magudeeswaran son of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 insured with it.

13. The accident not only killed the rider of the motor cycle on the spot but also caused grievous injuries to the appellant and therefore the appellant was entitled for the compensation.

14. It is contended that the 3rd respondent has not discharged the burden of proof and has simply relied on Ex. P-1 FIR and the statement recorded from the appellant under Section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the police and the report prepare