Beneficial nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 in proving accidents and injuries.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.

Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2016 and made in M.C.O.P. No. 2881/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore (Special Sub-Ordinate Court, Cuddalore.

1. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special Subordinate Court, Cuddalore.

2. Brief facts of the case is that on 08.06.2014, at about 18.15 hours, when the claimant Vetrivel was travelling in Hero Honda Splendor motor bike bearing Reg. No. PY-01-CA-2046, as a pillion rider, near grave yard at Visupallam Colony on the Cuddalore to Viruthachalam Main Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the motor bike rider, the vehicle hit the road side stone and turned turtle, Vetrivel sustained injury on the mandible fracture on the right rips, fracture on the left hand, fracture on the right leg injuries on the left toe, all over body grievous nature. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore and after that he was admitted in Kurinjipadi Government Hospital for treatment. Arraying the owner of the motor bike as the first respondent and its Insurance Company as the 2nd respondent, a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- was filed.

3. The Insurance Company in its counter repudiated the claim on the ground that the facts stated by the petitioner is contrary to truth. The accident took place when the petitioner was driving the vehicle and hit by an unknown lorry. This fact is reflected in the Accident Register Copy. Contrary to the contemporaneous document, for the sake of getting compensation, false averments are made suppressing the material facts. The Police, on investigating the case, has closed the complaint as mistake of fact. Without impleading the above vehicle and the insurer, the petitioner/claimant has invented a story as if the two wheeler was driven by its owner Sundarajan in which he was travelling as a pillion rider and due to rash and negligent driving of Sundarajan, the two wheeler hit the road side stone and turned turtle. Since the claim petition bristles with suppression of material facts and on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, the same is to be dismissed. Further, the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation has also been questioned as excessive.

4. Before the Tribunal, the claimant Vetrivel and the Doctor, who gave Disability Certificate were examined as PW-1 and PW-2. 11 exhibits were marked. On the side of the respondent, one Gunasekaran, Grade-I, Police Constable was examined as RW-1. 3 exhibits were marked. The Tribunal rejected the defence of the Insurance Company for want of proof and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,51,886/- as compensation to the claimant.

5. The break of figure for the compensation is as below:-

6. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the above award, has preferred the appeal contending that the Tribunal has totally ignored the evidence of RW-1 (Gunasekaran, Grade-I Police Constable) and three exhibits viz. R1 to R3 marked on behalf of the respondents. The evidence adduced by the respondents would amply show that the accident as narrated by the claimant in the claim petition is false and imaginary. The Police, after investigation, has closed the complaint as mistake of fact. The final report (Ex.R1) and the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate (Ex.R2) were not at all considered by the Tribunal to reject the case of the claimant. Ex.P3, which is the Accident Report itself would cle