The burden of proof in negligence cases, admissibility of medical and police records, and principles for calculating compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act 1988 against the award and decree dated 26.07.2019 made in MCOP No.1148 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai.)

V. Sivagnanam, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court of Small Causes, Chennai in MCOP No.1148 of 2012 dated 26.07.2019.

2. The facts of the case in nutshell:-

On 22.12.2011, at 10.00 hours, the claimants' son Girish Chander travelled as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN-67-AD-0388 from Kelambakkam towards Vandalur. When the said vehicle was nearing Nallambakkam Crusher Road, the rider drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the center median of the road. Due to which, the Girish Chander fell down and sustained grievous injuries and became unconscious. Immediately, he was admitted in a hospital and took treatment nearly 1-1/2 years and later, died due to the head injuries sustained by him in the accident. The third respondent herein is the rider, the fourth respondent herein is the owner and the appellant is the insurer of the offending motorcycle. Hence, the parents laid a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,10,00,000/-.

3. The appellant Insurance Company filed their counter disputing the manner of accident, occupation and income of the deceased and its liability to pay the compensation. It was also contended that the claim is excessive and exorbitant.

4. To substantiate the case, on the side of the claimants, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 were marked. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, one Suresh was examined as R.W.1 and Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the rider of the motorcycle was responsible for the accident and awarded compensation of Rs.46,62,700/- to the claimants. Assailing the award, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company Mr.S.Arunkumar submitted that the complaint with regard to the accident was given belatedly. The claimants had not given any satisfactory explanation for the belated complaint with regard to the accident. The complaint was given subsequently in order to get compensation for the accident caused by some other vehicle by placing the third respondent's vehicle, colluding with the third respondent/Mathivanan. He further submitted that the case of the claimants that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider with the third respondent/Mathivanan in a two wheeler, is not proved by evidence. The Tribunal, believing the evidence, fixed the negligence on the third respondent, Mathivanan and awarded compensation. The reliance placed by the Tribunal is unsustainable on facts. The finding that the third respondent's vehicle was involved in the accident and awarding compensation is unsustainable against the evidence on record. The Tribunal erred in awarding huge compensation. Thus, the learned counsel prayed to set aside the award of the Tribunal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submitted that the accident was proved by the oral evidence adduced by the claimants before the Tribunal. The deceased was in coma for a long period and subsequently, he died. This fact was established by producing medical evidence. Lodging of the complaint belatedly is not a valid ground to reject the claim, as the accident is genuine one. The Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion based on the evidence that the deceased sustained injuries in the road accident while he was travelling along with the third respondent. He further submitted that the impugned award is well reasoned and it requires no interference. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

8. nThis Court carefully considered the submi