The case established the importance of early and accurate identification of the vehicle involved in a road accident, and the liability of the insurer under the M.V. Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, 1988 against the decree and Judgment dated 9.03.2017 made in M.C.O.P.No. 1370 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Special District Court, Salem).)

1. The second respondent in M.C.O.P.No. 1370 of 2013 on the file of the District Court at Salem / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem, is the appellant herein.

2. The second respondent is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 09.03.2017, granting compensation of Rs.10,44,000/- for the death of John Basha, the husband of the first claimant and father of the second, third and fifth respondents and son of the fourth respondent.

3. It had been stated in the petition seeking compensation for the death that on 14.08.2013 at around 9.45 p.m., in Dharmapuri to Salem Main Road at Omalur, the deceased was walking on the extreme let and was proceeding towards a Dall Mill, when a vehicle motor car bearing Registration No. TN-33-AR-6494 came from behind and hit him and as a matter of fact, the wheel of the car dragged him to a distance of nearly 100 ft. John Basha died on the spot.

4. It was claimed that the motor car was driven in a rash and negligent manner and did not also blow horn to warn John Basha. Claiming compensation for the said accident, the claim petition had been filed.

5. The second respondent joined issue before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and did not admit that the first respondent therein Myil Ananth, or the vehicle bearing No. TN-33-AR-6494 was responsible for the accident. It had been further stated that the Omalur Police Station, Salem District, had registered FIR No. 570 of 2013 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. After investigation, they had filed a final report stating that the vehicle of the first respondent was not involved in the accident. The second respondent/Insurance Company disclaimed their liability. They also claimed that the compensation sought was excessive and that the claim petition should be dismissed.

6. Even before proceeding further, it must be mentioned that in the nomenclature of the claim petition, it had been stated that it had been filed under Section 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 3 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules.

7. The parties went to trial and during the course of trial, on the side of the claimants, PW-1 and PW-2 were examined. PW-1 was the first claimant / widow of John Basha. On the side of the respondents, three witnesses were examined and RW-3 was actually the first respondent Myil Ananth. RW-1 was the Sub Inspector of Omalur Police Station. On the side of the claimants, Exs. P-1 to P-15 were marked. Ex.P-1 was the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.P-2 was the postmortem report and Ex.P-3 were the medical reports. On the side of the respondents, Exs. R-1 to R-3 were marked. Exs. X1 to X4 were also marked. Ex.X1 was the copy of the First Information Report, Ex.X2 was the copy of the RCS notice and Ex.X3 was the copy of the final report and Ex.X4 was the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector.

8. In the course of the Judgment, the first issue which was framed for consideration was as to how the accident occurred.

9. The Tribunal referred to the evidence of RW-3/first respondent, who deposed that at the time of the accident, he was coming from Bangalore to Erode and at around 9 p.m., he crossed Omalur and that he did not cause the accident. Thereafter, the next day the police officials had come over to his residence and had taken his car for inspection. He took back the car after 15 days.

10. The Tribunal also considered the evidence of RW-1 Samydurai, Sub Inspector of Police, Omalur Police Station. In the FIR, it had been stated that the accident had been caused by the vehicle bearing Vehicle Registration No. TN-33AR-6494 which was a red coloured motor vehicle.

11. Thereafter, the witness stated that during the course of investigation, it had been found that no conclusion could be