The court emphasized the importance of genuine and consistent evidence in establishing liability and entitlement to compensation in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: C.M.A.No.1898 of 2015 and C.M.A.No.521 of 2017: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.3168 of 2012 on 31.07.2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Small Causes Court-II Judge) at Chennai.)

Common Judgment:

C.M.A.No.1898 of 2015 is filed by the Insurance-Company and the other C.M.A.No.521 of 2017 is filed by the claimant.

2. Both the appeals arise out of the same claim petition, in which, the claimant was injured. The parties are referred to as claimant and respondent as before the Tribunal below.

3. The facts in brief are as follows:-

(i) It is the case of the claimant that on 07.09.2011, she was travelling in a tractor, bearing Registration No.TN-32-R-1549. At around 14.30 hours, the driver of the tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and had suddenly applied the brakes, as a result of which, the claimant was thrown out of the tractor and had sustained grievous injuries.

(ii) It is the case of the claimant that she was travelling as a load man in the tractor, which was transporting soil from the well. She would submit that by reason of the accident, she had suffered the following injuries.

“Head injury. Fracture of skull, loss of left ear and removed. Fracture of Mandible, loss of 3 upper teeth, loss of left eye, fracture of comminuted left zygoma complex, comminuted fracture symphyas / poaynephyin, fracture of blanout left crbit, fracture of C4, C5, fracture of left chest, fracture of right ankle and all over the body.“

She had therefore claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

(iii) The claim petition has been filed in M.C.O.P.No. 3168 of 2012 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Small Causes Court, Chennai. The second respondent-Insurance Company had alone contested the petition, since the first respondent/owner of the vehicle remained absent and was set ex-parte, though they had initially entered appearance through a counsel.

4. The second respondent-Insurance Company had filed a counter inter-alia contending that the claimant was an unauthorised passenger, since the tractor was a single seater and therefore, the Insurance Company contented that they were not liable to pay the compensation. They had further submitted that the accident had not been caused by the tractor and there was no complaint implicating the tractor given immediately after the accident. Further, the owner of the tractor had also not intimated the insurance Company about the said accident. They had taken a defence that the claim was a fraudulent one. The Insurance Company had also denied that the tractor was not insured with them and that it had the proper permit and fitness certificate. They had also put the claimant to strict proof that the driver of the tractor had a valid driving licence. They had also stated that the driver is none else than the husband of the claimant and the claim petition was collusive one.

5. The Tribunal below had framed the following points for consideration.

(i) Whether the accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the first respondent-s tractor bearing Registration No.TN-32-R-1549?

ii) Whether the respondents are liable to pay the compensation?

iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation?

iv) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to?

6. Ultimately, by an Award dated 31.07.2014, the Tribunal below held that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the driver of the tractor and had proceeded to fasten the liability on the tractor and consequently held that the second respondent-Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the claimant. Though the respondent had taken a plea that the delay in filing of the F.I.R was yet another pointer to the fact that the claim itself was a collusive o