JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Court, Karur in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 dated 10.01.2013.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 dated 10.01.2013, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, District Judge, Karur.

2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the respondents 1 and 2 herein are the petitioners and the respondents 3 to 5 herein are the respondents 3 to 5 in the claim petition. The respondents 3 to 5 herein are the legal heirs of the deceased first respondent. The appellant herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, claiming compensation for the c Anand, in an accident that took place on 13.10.2007. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,33,070/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Seventy only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008 is as follows:

On 13.10.2007, when minor Anand was standing on the extreme left side of the Kaliyappanoor Pirivu road near Karur – Gujiliyamparai road, the first respondent drove the Hero Honda motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-57- K-6586 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the minor boy. He was taken to Amaravathi Hospital, Karur and then he was shifted to KMCH hospital, Coimbatore. He died on 26.10.2007. The deceased was aged about 17 years and was studying 10th standard at the time of accident. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. A brief substance of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, is as follows: The manner of the accident as narrated in the petition is false. The first respondent never informed the accident to the second respondent and he has violated the terms of the policy. The claim is excessive.

5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the guardian for the respondents 4 and 5, in M.C.O.P.No.85 of 2008, is as follows:

The manner of the accident, nature of injury and medical expenses are all denied. The accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased. The claim is excessive. The first respondent vehicle is duely insured with the second respondent. There is no violation of policy condition. If at all any compensation has to be paid, it has to be paid only by the second respondent.

6. On the side of the petitioners, three witnesses were examined and seven documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.5,33,070/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand and Seventy only) as compensation to be paid by the respondents 2 to 5 therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-57-K-6586 was not involved in the accident, as alleged by the claimants. The registration number of the vehicle was not mentioned in the FIR and in the medical records. P.W.2 has not explained as to how he know the registration number of the vehicle. P.W.2 has admitted that he did not see the registration number of the vehicle at the time of accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act and that the entire burden of proof lies on the claimants. There is no substantial oral or documentary evidence to prove the involvement of the vehicle. The award was passed on sympathy and not on evidence. The quantum of award is excessive. The negligence was on the part of the minor. In support of his contention, a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reshma Kumari and Others v. Madan Mohan and another reported in 2013(1) TNMAC 481 is ci