The judgment emphasizes the application of a preponderance of probability standard in motor accident claim cases and the significance of police records, FIR, and charge sheet in establishing the occurrence of the accident and the involvement of the vehicles.

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 08.06.2016 made in MCOP.No.396 of 2012 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District Court), Poonamallee.)

1. Calling in question the judgment and decree dated 8.6.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Poonamallee, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

2. The first appellant is the wife of the deceased and appellants 2 to 8 are children of the deceased. It is the case of the appellants, who are the claimants, that on 6.3.2012 at about 8.15 AM, when the deceased was waiting on the Mount-Poonamallee Road at Kattupakkam, near Maruthi Showroom, in order to cross the road, a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 10 AB 8555, driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from east to west direction and hit the deceased causing fatal injuries. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle which caused the accident and the second respondent is the insurance company which insured the said vehicle. In this backdrop, the appellants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs.

3. The second respondent/insurance company refuted the contents of the claim petition by filing a counter statement. It was alleged that the motorcycle was nowhere involved in the accident and that a lorry, which could not be identified by the appellants, hit against the deceased and caused the accident.

4. The learned Tribunal, by judgment and decree dated 8.6.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2012, dismissed the claim petition.

5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 8.6.2016 passed in M.C.O.P.No.396 of 2012, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.

6. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the Tribunal erred in relying on Ex.R1 (AR Copy) and Ex.R2 (Investigation Report) to jump to the conclusion that the deceased was hit by lorry, by ignoring the evidence of P.W.1 and the contents of Ex.P1 (FIR), more so, when there is no contra evidence by the insured. He further submitted that the author of A.R. copy was not examined and the evidence of R.W.1 (Investigator) is only hearsay. To fortify the said submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the following decisions: (i) Maya Azhagar and another v. Thangiah and others, reported in 2011 (2) TN MAC 391; and (ii) V.Thanikachalam v. C.Premalatha and another, reported in 2002 4 LW 495.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent insurance company reiterated the reasons that weighed with the Tribunal in dismissing the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

8. I heard Mr.P.Selvaraj, learned counsel for he appellants and Mr.S.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

9. According to the appellants, on 6.3.2012 at about 8.15 A.M., the deceased was waiting in Mount-Poonamallee Road at Kattupakkam near Maruti showroom in order to cross the road. At that time, the motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-10 AB 8555 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased and caused fatal injuries. Immediately, the deceased was taken to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Porur, wherefrom he was taken to the Government General Hospital, Chennai and succumbed to injuries on the next date. Regarding the accident, the second appellant Ramamoorthy lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Poonamallee Traffic Investigation Police Station and the police has registered the case in Crime No.341 of 2012 under Section 279 and 304A IPC against the rider of the motorcycle Shyamrajan. Stating that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle, the appellants, who are wife and children of the deceased have filed the claim petition.

10. The involvement of the motorcycle bearing registratio