The lack of valid documentation and evidence to support a claim for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 can lead to the rejection of the claim.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the Award dated 26.06.2007 made in M.C.O.P.No.368 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhavani (Sub Court, Bhavani).)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the unsuccessful claimants whose MCOP.No.368 of 2005 filed seeking compensation of Rs.4,40,000/- has been rejected by the Tribunal.

2. As per the claim petition averments, on 01.12.2003 at about 9.30 a.m., Gandhi who driven TVS 50 vehicle with 1st claimant as pillion rider, travelled on National HIghways Road, Karuthampatti. At that time, the bus belonging to 2nd respondent bearing Reg.No.33-1506 came on the same direction which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the rear side of the two wheeler. In the resultant accident, both Gandhi and the 1st claimant sustained injuries. Gandhi has been admitted in CMC Hospital, Coimbatore and then he was taking treatment in the Government Hospital, Mettur. Since his condition worsened, he died on 10.04.2004. Therefore, the claimants claimed Rs.4,40,000/- as compensation.

3. The 2nd respondent transport corporation filed counter before the tribunal and resisted the claim. One among the contentions raised by the transport corporation is that due to various diseases, the said person died and in such circumstances, fixing negligence on the driver of the bus may not be correct.

4. The tribunal on going through the evidence and pleadings, framed two questions for consideration (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1st respondent/driver of the bus and (2) Whether the claimants are entitled to the relief of compensation, if so, what is the quantum of compensation ?

5. The evidence of P.W.1 is that only due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver of the bus, the accident occurred on 01.12.2003 and her husband who met with serious injuries has not been recovered even after continuous treatment and he died on 10.04.2004. It is further deposed by P.W.1 that her husband was aged 42 years at the time of accident and he was hale and healthy and only due to accident, her husband died.

6. In the cross examination of P.W.1, it is agreed by her that the two wheeler involved in the accident has been purchased by them just one month before the accident and the said vehicle had no registration number. Further, there was no insurance coverage for the two wheeler. It has been further accepted by P.W.1 that for the injuries sustained and the treatment taken, she has not produced any documentary evidence. But P.W.1 stated that only due to negligent driving of the driver of the transport corporation bus, the accident occurred. However, she also accepted that her husband died only after four months of the accident and in the mean time, he was taking treatment only as out patient in the Mettur Government Hospital. It has also been negatived by P.W.1 that her husband was suffering from diabetes and so he was taking treatment as outpatient in the Government Hospital, Mettur.

7. The tribunal discussed about the contents of Ex.P.-1 Complaint, wherein the first claimant given the complaint and stated that since her husband was not well, they gone to hospital and on the way, the accident occurred. Further, regarding injuries, the tribunal found that the deceased sustained only simple injuries but the death occurred after four months of the accident.

8. The Tribunal also analysed Ex.P.3 Motor vehicle inspector’s report and held that the two wheeler driven by the deceased does not have registration number, no insurance coverage and the licence of the driver also not produced. Per contra, the Motor Vehicle inspector’s report regarding the transport corporation bus showed that there was no damage to the bus.

9. The tribunal also clearly given its finding that Ex.P.2 would show that there was no head injuries suffered by the deceased, but on the contrary, based on Ex.P.2, Ex.P.8 given