The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in a claim for compensation in a hit and run case, and the court's authority to take adverse inferences when the respondents fail to disprove the claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.2017 in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai.)

1. The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased Hidayath Ali, who died in a road accident that had taken place on 19.12.2010. The claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.270 of 2011 filed by the appellants herein, seeking compensation for the death of Hidayathi Ali, was dismissed by the Tribunal which has given rise to the filing of the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. According to the appellants, the deceased Hidayath Ali was employed as a Cook and was earning a sum of Rs.500/- per day. On the fateful day, on 19.12.2010, at about 01.10 hours, the deceased was walking on the 100 Feet Road, near Oorandi Amman Street, Velacherry after finishing his work. The deceased was accompanied by his friend Amjathkan and while they were walking together, the deceased crossed the road to purchase cigarette. As the deceased did not turn-up even after a considerable length of time, the said Amjathkan searched for the deceased and saw him lying in a pool of blood in the road. On enquiry, he came to know that an unidentified private bus had hit the deceased and ran off. Therefore, a complaint was given by Amjathkan based on which a case in Crime No.488 of 2010 came to be registered against an unknown person. In the First Information Report, the name of the driver of the private bus or the description of the bus were not given.

3. While so, one Saravanan, S/o.Kannan surrendered himself before the Guindy Police Station and voluntarily gave a statement stating that it was he who drove the vehicle belonging to M/s.Parveen Travels (P) Ltd., and caused the accident in which the deceased died. On the basis of such statement Saravanan, the driver of the private bus was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Based on the above developments, the claim petition was filed by the claimants against the owner of the bus namely M/s.Parveen Travels (P) Ltd., and it's insurer, claiming a sum of Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased.

4. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent M/s.Parveen Travels (P) Ltd., remained absent and therefore set ex-parte. The claim petition was contested by the 2nd respondent.

5. The 2nd respondent has stated that the bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-AB-9258 did not involve in the accident. In the First Information Report, it was merely stated that a private bus had hit the deceased. However, one Saravanan voluntarily surrendered before the Guindy Police Station, based on which, the claim petition was filed as against the respondents. The Insurance Company denied that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the private bus bearing Registration No.TN-21-AB-9258. If at all, the accident would have occurred due to the negligence of the deceased while attempting to cross the busy 100 feet road at wee hours. Even assuming that there is any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus, the deceased had contributed to the accident and therefore also no fault could be attributable as against the driver of the bus. The Insurance Company also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st claimant examined herself as P.W.1. P.W.2 was examined as an eye-witness to the accident. One Segunaina was examined as P.W.3. P.W.4 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered the case in Crime No.488 of 2010. Exs.P1 to P7 were marked on the side of the appellants. The respondents before the Tribunal did not examine any witness or filed any documents. Exs.X1 and X2 being the Court documents viz., remand report of the accused Saravanan and the Mother Vehicles Inspector Report were taken on record.

7. The Tribunal on analyzing the oral and documentary evidence has concluded tha