JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the fair and decreetal order dated 07.11.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the order in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi.

2. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents in the claim petition.

3. Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2006, is as follows:-

On 24.10.2005 at about 22 hours, when the petitioner parked his two wheeler, bearing Registration No.TN-67-D-8156B56 and was standing nearby, an Auto, belonging to the first respondent, bearing Registration No.TN-67- P-4762, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was admitted in the hospital and he took treatment as inpatient from 24.10.2005 till 31.10.2005 and again from 01.11.2015 till 17.12.2005 and subsequently, he took treatment as outpatient till the date of petition. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.28 of 2006, is as follows:-

The vehicle was not involved in the accident. A false complaint was registered against the driver of the Auto. The driver of the Auto and the first respondent colluded with the claimant and driver of the Auto admitted guilty and paid fine on 08.11.2005. The petitioner was a pillion rider and the two wheeler was driven by one Veerasingam in a rash and negligent manner and the two wheeler dashed against the Auto. The rider of the two wheeler did not have a valid license at the time of the accident. Since the offending Auto was also not properly insured, the present Auto was falsely implicated in the case. The appellant has not sustained any permanent disability. The age, profession and income of the petitioner are all denied. The nature of the injuries and the manner of the treatment are all denied.

5. The first respondent was set as ex-parte. Four witnesses were examined and fourteen documents were marked on the side of the petitioner. Four witnesses were examined and three documents were marked on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that without appreciating the materials available on record and without appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective, the Tribunal dismissed the petition. The tribunal failed to appreciate the dictum of this Court in C.M.A.No.954 of 2010, dated 14.02.2012 in the proper perspective. A mistake crept in the FIR regarding the identification of the vehicle and the same is not fatal. The Tribunal is competent to decide negligence and liability independently. The injured claimant could not furnish the particulars immediately after the accident and that a discrepancy cannot be a ground for dismissing the claim petition. An accident can cause injuries to a human being without damaging the vehicle. The vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent only had caused the accident.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is further stated that appellant was riding as a pillion rider. The two wheeler was drove by one Veerasingam. The vehicle was parked at the time of the accident and the claimant was standing nearby. An Auto that came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner sustained fracture on the left thigh and leg. The petitioner was 32 years old at the time of the accident. The rider of the two wheeler viz., Veerasingam was examined as P.W.3. The driver of the Auto admitted guilty and paid fine. The judgment of the Criminal Court in S.T.C.No.609