The judgment established the significance of evidence in proving negligence and clarified the liability of the insurance company based on the type of insurance policy.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Anand Venkatesh, J.)

[PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award made in MCOP No.121/2012, 127/2012 165/2012 and 184/2012 dated 15.09.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Principal District Court, Thoothukudi.]

1. All the above appeals have been filed by the claimants against the common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Principal District Court, Tuticorin, made in MCOP Nos.121/2012, 127/2012, 165/2012 and 184/2012 dated 15.09.2014 dismissing all the petitions and rejecting the claim made for compensation by the appellants.

2. One Rajaiah was travelling in a Maruti Alto Car along with his wife and two children in Madurai – Rajapalayam Main Road on 20.05.2011 at about 5.00 a.m. and he was travelling from North to south towards Rajapalayam. The lorry belonging to the first respondent was driven by one Mani and he was driving the vehicle towards Madurai from South to North. The case of the claimants is that the lorry was driven in a rash and negligent manner and there was a head on collision resulting in the entire family losing their lives.

3. The claimants in MCOP No.184/2012 is the father of Rajaiah, who was the Driver of the car. MCOP No.121/2012 and 127/2012 were filed by the paternal grandfather of the children. MCOP No.165/2012 was filed by the parents of Wini @ Elizabeth Winfred, W/o.Rajaiah.

4. The defence taken by the Insurance Company is that the accident took place only due to the negligence of the car driver and hence, there is no scope for granting any compensation to the claimants. The further defence taken by the Insurance company is that the claimants are not dependants of the deceased and hence, they are not entitled for any compensation. They also took a stand that there was no effective driving license for the car driver and there was no insurance policy covering the car.

5. The claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.4 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. The Insurance company examined R.W.1 and marked Ex.R1 to Ex.R3. The Court below, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on assessment of the evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the accident took place purely due to the negligence on the part of the car driver and accordingly dismissed all the claim petitions. Aggrieved by the same, these appeals have been filed before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company.

7. The claimants, in order to prove the negligence on the part of the lorry driver, examined P.W.2, who is said to be an eyewitness to the incident. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he was going in his two wheeler in the Madurai – Rajapalayam Main Road on 20.05.2011 and the lorry driver was driving the lorry in a rash and negligent manner on the wrong side of the road and he only caused the accident and escaped from the accident spot. During cross-examination, this witness was not even able to provide the vehicle number of the TVS-50 that he was driving. In spite of witnessing this incident, this witness did not even complain about this to anyone and he states in his cross-examination that the lorry was coming from south to north, which means that the lorry was coming in the right direction and was moving towards Madurai. Hence, the Court below rightly disbelieved the evidence of P.W.2.

8. In the present case, there are three documents, which are to be taken into consideration to render a finding on the issue of negligence. Those documents are Ex.P1 – FIR, registered in Crime No.154/2011, Ex.R2- Observation Mahazar and Ex.R3 – Rough sketch and Ex.P8 – report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector.

9. Immediately after the accident, the lorry driver left the accident spot and he lodged the complaint before the Peraiyur police station on 20.05.2011 at about 6.30 a.m., which is 1½ hours after the accident took place. In the complaint, the