The importance of reliable evidence in establishing negligence and compensation in motor accident claims.

T. Krishnavalli, J.

Assailing the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Court), Madurai, in MCOP No.1925 of 2014, dated 26.10.2016, the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

2. The case of the claimants is that on 30.01.2013 at 1.20 pm, the deceased Arumugam was riding his Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN-59-BX-4646 from Karungalakudi to Kovilpatti and when he reached Vairavanpatti, a tipper lorry bearing Registration No. TN-76-A-1348 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased. In that process, the deceased Arumugam sustained grievous head injury and died on the spot. In this regard, a case in Crime No.7 of 2013 stands registered under Section 304(A) IPC against the driver of the tipper Lorry.

3. The claimants have stated that the deceased was 27 years old at the time of accident and he was working as a Construction Worker in a private Construction Company at Singapore and he was earning not less than Rs. 30,000/- per month.

4. The appellant/Insurance Company has filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition and also contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence on the part of the deceased. They also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased and manner of the accident and their liability to pay the compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, in order to establish their case, the claimants examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. On the side of the appellant Insurance Company, 2 witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2 and 3 documents were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after considering both the oral and documentary evidence, has come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tipper lorry and awarded compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Challenging the award, the present appeal is filed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

8. The father of the deceased was examined as PW1. PW1 deposed that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses. PW2 and PW3 have categorically stated that on 30.01.2013 at 1.30 pm, while they were travelling in a two wheeler behind the vehicle of the deceased and when they reached Vairanvanpatti, the driver of the offending vehicle/Tipper Lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed against the vehicle of the deceased and due to which, the deceased died on the spot and they informed the occurrence to PW1 as well as to the Police and then, the body of the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/claimants argued that after the occurrence, the father of the deceased went to the Police Station and the police officials obtained the signature of PW1 in several blank papers and in order to safeguard the driver of the offending vehicle, they prepared a complaint by stating that the deceased only dashed against the tipper lorry and sustained injuries and PW1 has not seen the occurrence and after he came to understand that the First Information Report was filed as against his son, then he gave the complaint before the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi stating the real facts.

10. On perusal of Ex.P1, it is stated as follows:-

xxxxxxxxx

11. Since no action was taken by the superior police officials, PW1 filed petition under Section 200 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, directing to take appropriate action as against the police officials, who falsely registered the case against the deceased and now, the case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Melur as C.C.No.37 of 2014

12. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Co