JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through video conference)

This appeal has been directed against the award, dated 25.01.2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, First Additional Sub-Court, Salem in M.C.O.P.No.942 of 2005.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant Thiru.K.Kuppusamy, submitted his arguments.

The brief facts relevant to the accident which are as follows:

The appellant/claimant in this case Pachiyammal, W/o.Alagumuthu, had on 16.06.2005, went to K.N.Rao Hospital, Salem to see her sister's daughter Devi who was admitted in the hospital for delivery. She went to the Hospital in the Town Bus and got down at T.V.S.Stop at 8.30 a.m., and she was proceeding on the left side of the road towards K.N.Rao Hospital when she was passing near Lakshmi Fruit Stall, the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-30-B-1352, Bullet Motorcycle came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and knocked her down, she suffered multiple fractures and fell on the road. Immediately, the passers by took her to the private hospital viz., Kamala Hospital, Salem, where she was admitted as inpatient. The claimant was a vegetable vendor, her husband is employed as a watch man. While she was under treatment at Kamala Hospital, the Traffic Investigation Cell, Salem City Police enquired her and obtain statement from her and registered an F.I.R in Crime No.278 of 2005 under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC on 17.06.2005. The accident was caused only due to rash and negligent riding by the rider of the motorcycle, who is a worker in the Automobile workshop of the above said bullet. The worker of the Auto mobile workshop was test driving the bullet motorcycle, the worker is shown as 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the motorcycle, the 3rd respondent is the insurer of the vehicle.

3. As per his submissions, the injured claimant had preferred a complaint to the Police regarding the manner of the accident and the vehicle involved in the accident. The F.I.R clearly stated that the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-30-B-1352 had caused the accident resulting in her injuries. F.I.R was registered by the Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City Police. Subsequently, the Police had laid a charge sheet against the owner of the motorcycle bearing a different Registration No.TN-27-A-4498, before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Also the Police had taken steps in such a manner that the owner of the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-27-A-4498 had pleaded guilty to the charge before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem. The learned counsel for the appellant had reiterated those facts in the claim petition and had referred to the documents marked as Exs.A-1 to A-9. Ex.A-1 is the F.I.R, Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate, Ex.A-3 is the series of the Medical bills, Ex.A-4 is the complaint preferred by the claimant in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem Ex.A-5 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report regarding the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-27-A-4498, Ex.A-6 is the copy of the complaint preferred by Advocate for the claimant to the Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police. Ex.A-7 is the copy of the complaint given by the Counsel for the claimant to the Deputy Inspector of General of Police, Salem Range, Ex.A-8 is the X-ray, Ex.A-9 is the disability certificate issued by the Doctor who had assessed the disability of the claimant and deposed evidence as P.W.2. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence let in before the Tribunal and had dismissed the claimant's petition for just compensation on the ground that the registration number of the vehicle stated by the claimant is not the vehicle involved in the accident. The claimant is the competent person to speak about the same. The Police had investigated the ca