The main legal point established is the need for a preponderance of probabilities in establishing claims in motor accident cases, and the consequences of fabricating evidence for compensation.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award and decree, dated 07.10.2016 made in M.C.O.P.No.293 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur at Pattukkottai.)

J.Nisha Banu, J. & N.Anand Venkatesh, J.

1. The claimants have filed this appeal against the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT)/III-Additioanl District and District Judge, Pattukottai, made in M.C.O.P. No.293 of 2007, dated 07.10.2016, dismissing the claim petition seeking for compensation for the demise of one, Santhosh Babu in an accident.

2. The case of the claimants is that the deceased Santhosh Babu, who is the son of the 1st and 2nd claimants and the brother of the 3rd and 4th claimants, had completed his MBBS course and was doing House Surgency. On 07.06.2006, at about 11.40 p.m., when he was driving the car on the Thanjavur-Pattukottai Highways, near Pappanadu Thippiyakudi crossroad, a mini lorry is said to have come in the opposite direction and it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it dashed on the right side of the car driven by the deceased and the deceased is said to have lost control and he had hit a banyan tree on the roadside. It was further stated that one, Jeganathan also accompanied the deceased in the car. Due to the accident, both Santhosh Babu and Jeganathan sustained grievous injuries and Santhosh Babu died on the spot.

3. The further case of the claimants is that the dead body of Santhosh Babu was taken to Pattukottai Government Hospital and the said Jeganathan also received treatment in the very same hospital. Postmortem was conducted and it was confirmed that the death was due to the accident.

4. A complaint is said to have been given by Jeganathan, who accompanied the deceased, at about 6.00 a.m. on 08.06.2006. Based on the same, an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.92 of 2006 for an offence under Section 304-A IPC.

5. In the above circumstances, the claim petition was filed seeking for compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(Rupees one crore only).

6. The Tribunal, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a categoric conclusion that the entire case is false and it is a made up case, orchestrated by the claimants to conceal the gross negligence on the part of the deceased Santhosh Babu and to make an exorbitant claim by way of compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the claimants have filed the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR was registered at the earliest point of time on the basis of the complaint given by Jeganathan, who accompanied the deceased. It was further submitted that the post-mortem certificate of the deceased clearly reflected the fact that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage, by virtue of serious injuries sustained in the vital organs at the time of the accident. The learned counsel further submitted that the FIR was investigated and it is clear from Ex.P17, which was the report of the Additional Superintendent of Police(Crime), Thanjavur, that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry and to come to this conclusion, the statement of the witnesses was recorded and the relevant documents like the post-mortem report, report of the motor vehicle inspector, etc., was considered and this conclusion was arrived at. Ultimately, when the final report was filed, it was not taken on file by the concerned Court since it was filed beyond the period of limitation and it was barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the Insurance Company raised a suspicion about the genuineness of the very accident and hence, an FIR came to be registered on the complaint given by the Insurance Company in Crime No.4 of 2012, for offence of cheating under Section 4