JUDGMENT :

R. SUBBIAH, J

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed as against the dismissal of the Claim Petition filed by the appellants herein in MCOP No. 4734 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes) Chennai on 02.12.2019.

2. The appellants herein are the father and brother of the deceased Dinesh. It is the case of the appellants that on 01.06.2018 at about 10.30 am, while the deceased was riding the Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN 01 AV 6417 on Chetpet-Harrington Road on the top of the subway, from the West to East direction, a car bearing Registration No. TN 07 CA 0014 came from the East to West direction. According to the appellants, the driver of the Car had driven it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, as a result of which, the deceased fell down and sustained grievious injuries. Since the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car bearing Registration No. TN 07 CA 0014, the appellants have filed a Claim Petition in MCOP No. 4734 of 2018 claiming a sum of Rs.86 lakhs as compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the Car filed a counter statement contending that the manner in which the accident is said to have taken place in the claim petition, is totally false. On 01.06.2018 at about 10.30 am, the first respondent's car was driven by its driver one N. Arumugam in a normal speed from East to West direction on the Southern side portion of the Harrington Subway. The deceased Dinesh was riding the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 01 AV 6417 from the opposite direction, i.e. from the West to East on the Northern portion of the subway at a very high speed. The deceased, without noticing a plastic cover containing fruit juice lying on the corner of the road, rode over it, skidded and fell down from the two wheeler. In that process, he rolled over on the road and came near the car driven by the driver of the first respondent. The driver of the car got down and helped the deceased along with three more persons. They helped the deceased to have water, made him sit on the side of the sub way, called the ambulance and sent him to the nearby hospital. On account of this incident, there was heavy traffic snarl witnessed in the area. Due to continuous blowing of horn by the vehicle users, the driver of the car moved from that place to facilitate vehicle movement. Thereafter, on 07.06.2018, after six days from the date of occurrence, the father of the deceased has given a complaint to the R-4, Pondy Bazaar Police Station as if the driver of the car had hit the deceased. The father of the deceased was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Furthermore, the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report reveals that the deceased did not possess a valid driving licence and there is no damage caused to the two wheeler. There is no insurance coverage available to the two wheeler as well. Thus, it was contended by the first respondent that the car owned by him, was not involved in the accident and it was falsely implicated. Therefore, the first respondent sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Insurance Company also resisted the claim petition by filing a counter statement denying the involvement of the car in the accident. It is the specific stand of the Insurance Company that the Car insured with them, had been falsely implicated in this case. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. In order to prove the averments in the claim petition, the father of the deceased was examined as PW1 before the Tribunal. One Kannan, said to be an eye witness, was examined as PW2 and one Thiagarajan, Proprietor, Bright Property Services, employer of the deceased was examined as PW3. Exs. P1 to P17 were marked as documents on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents, one K.Chellappan, Po