The burden of proof is on the claimant to establish entitlement to compensation, and a plea of guilty in a criminal court does not automatically establish negligence in a civil claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the decree and judgment dated 19th January 2017, passed in M.C.O.P.No.583 of 2010, by the Hon'ble Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (In the Court of Principal Subordinate Judge), at Tiruvannamalai.)

1. The civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2017 passed in M.C.O.P.No.583 of 2010.

2. The appeal is preferred by M/s. Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited, challenging the said judgment and decree, mainly on the ground that the 1st respondent/claimant had committed an act of negligence and therefore, he is not entitled for compensation and the Tribunal has erroneously awarded the compensation.

3. The parties are referred, as per the ranking of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The facts in brief as narrated in the claim petition are as under:

The petitioner is aged about 30 years and he was hale and healthy at the time of the accident. He was contract labour at TNEB and he was earning not less than Rs.10,000/- per month and he was the only earning member of his family. The family members are depending on his only income. That on 12.06.2009 at about 12.15 P.M Near Puthupattai Bai Kollai at Polur to Kanji Main road, the accident occurred wherein the petitioner was riding his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-25 J1168 along with one Ravikumar as a pillion rider from Kanji to Polur. While he came near to Puthupettai bai Kottai on the left side on the road, the first respondent's driver drove the vehicle mini auto bearing registration No.TN 25 J 4890 from the opposite direction in Polur to Kanji in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against two wheeler. Hence this petitioner was thrown out from his vehicle and got fracture over his left thie, hip and injured all over his body. The petitioner was taken to Pondicherry JIPMER hospital, and then he was taken to Government Hospital at Chennai, that he was taken to some private hospital and he spent more than Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment. The accident was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent driver who drove the Mini Auto and the above said Mini Auto has been owned by the first respondent and the same has been insured with the second respondent. Hence the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to this petitioner. The SI of Police, Kadaladi Police Station had registered a case in Cr.No.174/08 U/S.279,337 IPC and the same is pending. Hence, the petitioner claims compensation under the various heads mentioned in the petition as follows:

4. The 2nd respondent before the Tribunal, who is the appellant in the present appeal, filed a counter affidavit setting out the facts as extracted hereunder:

The allegations made in the petition are denied. The respondent does not admit any of the allegations contained in the petition save those that are specifically admitted herein and put the petitioner to strict proof of each and every one of them. The terms and conditions of the policy and violation of any conditions will disentitle the petitioner from claiming any relief against this respondent. The petitioner is putting to strict proof about the nature of the accident in the Tata ACE Mini Auto bearing registration No.TN 25 J 4890. The FIR has been mentioned that the Tata Ace Mini Auto bearing registration No.TN 25 J 4890 belonging to the 1st respondent proceeding from Polur to Kanji road when nearing