The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor vehicle accident case, based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical documents, and investigation reports.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.387 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 29.04.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.797 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. C.M.A.(MD) No.235 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated 29.04.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.387 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

2. C.M.A.(MD) No.236 of 2012 has been filed against the award, dated 29.04.2011, made in M.C.O.P.No.797 of 2005, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P. Petition.

3. Brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.387 of 2005 is as follows: On 26.07.2004, at about 11.30 pm., while the petitioner / Sridhar was riding a two wheeler-TVS Champ with one Babu as a pillion rider along the Trichy Bharathidhasan road, in a slow and steady manner, observing the road Rules, a Yamaha, motor bike bearing Registration No.TN-45-R-4111 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the TVS Champ. The petitioner sustained injuries and his right leg toes were fractured and that the second toe was removed. He sustained fracture in the shoulder and sustained multiple injuries. He claimed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the petition in M.C.O.P.No.797 of 2005 is as follows:-

In the accident mentioned above, the petitioner/ Babu travelled as a pillion rider. He sustained fracture in the right hand, right foot and he claimed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation.

5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent in both the petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.387 and 797 of 2005 is as follows:- The vehicle was insured with the second respondent at the time of accident. There is a delay of 14 days in registering the F.I.R. The first respondent admitted guilty and paid fine before the Criminal Court. The second respondent is liable to pay compensation. The age, avocation, and income of the petitioners are to be proved.

6. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent in both the petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.387 and 797 of 2005 is as follows:-

The first respondent vehicle was not at all involved in the accident. The petitioners' vehicle hit against some unknown vehicle. Only for the purpose of claiming compensation, the first respondent vehicle was impleaded in the case by way of a false complaint, after a lapse of 15 days from the date of accident. Therefore, this respondent is not at all responsible to pay compensation. The date of accident, manner of accident are all denied. The nature of injuries, period of treatment, disability are all denied. The occurrence has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the TVS Champ. The rider of the TVS Champ has no driving licence and has no valid Insurance or R.C., at the time of accident. The rider of the Yamaha bike also has no driving licence at the time of accident. The amount claimed by the petitioners is highly excessive.

7. On the side of the claimants, 3 witnesses were examined and 12 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents, 2 witnesses were examined and 2 document were marked. One document was marked as Ex.X1.

8. After