JUDGMENT :

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Tiruppur, in M.C.O.P.No.1272 of 2014 dated 20.09.2017.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking in the claim petition.

3. It is the case of the claimants that on 10.08.2014, at about 10.40 pm., Semalai was riding the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 39 S 3188 towards Pongalur near Kovai to Trichy Road, near Jai Vishnu Spintex Mill, at the extreme left side of the road. At that time, all of a sudden, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 38 BK 2693 came on the same direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the said Semalai and due to the accident he sustained grievous injuries and died in the Government Hospital, Tiruppur. Alleging that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the claimants laid a claim petition for compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- before the Tribunal.

4. Resisting the claim made by the claimants, the 3rd respondent filed counter statement inter alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by the claimants. They also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased.

5. To substantiate the claim, on the side of the claimants, PW.1 and PW.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 were marked. On the side of the Insurance Company, RW1 to RW3 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R6 were marked.

6. On appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the said accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent/driver. Therefore, an amount of Rs.23,00,000/- has been awarded under various heads to the claimants, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim petition till the date of realization.

7. Assailing the above award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company contends that in this case, the vehicle which caused the accident was not identified. The police personnel, after conducting enquiry, closed the case as 'undetected'. Further, there is no evidence to connect the insured motorcycle with the accident. The Tribunal relied upon the evidence of P.W.2-Marimuthu, came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent is the offender. He would further submit that for the following two reasons, the evidence of P.W.2-Marimuthu cannot be admitted, firstly, during the cross examination, he deposed that he had intimated about the accident to the 1st claimant at 12 O' Clock. But the complaint before the Police Station was given only on 12.08.2014. The alleged accident happened on 10.08.2014, if the witness, P.W.2 witnessed the accident and intimated the fact to the 1st claimant on the same day at 12.00 pm., the complaint in FIR No.259 of 2014 need not be given after a period of two days, besides, there is no whisper about the involvement of the 1st respondent/driver of the vehicle in the accident. In the complaint it is mentioned that an unknown vehicle hit the two wheeler of the deceased. Secondly, he deposed that the 1st respondent came in the motorcycle with his wife and caused the accident, thereby they also sustained some minor injuries and immediately they rushed from the place of occurrence. On verification of the Motor Vehicles Inspector Report-Ex.P.5, it is found that the vehicle driven by the deceased was irretrievably damaged and the Inspector of Motor Vehicles recorded that due to the accident, the vehicle which caused the accident could not be in a good condition to drive it. If it is so, the evidence of P.W.2 that after the accident, the 1st respondent and his wife went away from the place of occurrence by driving his motorcycle could not be believable. For the above said two reasons, the evidence of P.W.2 could not be reliable, as it is untrue. He could not be an eye witness for t