Liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is determined based on evidence of the accident and insurance coverage.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 26.11.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Court, Paramakudi.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2011 dated 26.11.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sub Judge, Paramakudi.

2. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the petitioner and the third respondent herein is the first respondent in the claim petition. The first respondent herein has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2011, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant, in an accident that took place on 09.12.2009. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,66,827/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only) as compensation. Against which, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.84 of 2011 is as follows:

  On 09.12.2009, when the petitioner was riding his Hero Honda vehicle along the Madurai-Kamuthi main road near S.S.Pandiyan Company, a JCB bearing registration No.TN-64-H-0243 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted in Kamuthi Government Hospital and then he was admitted in Madurai Meenakshi Mission Hospital. The petitioner has claimed a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs only) as compensation.

4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent therein is as follows:

  The petitioner has to prove that it was the driver of the first respondent vehicle, who was responsible for the accident. The petitioner has to prove the involvement of the vehicle and that the petitioner has to prove that the driver of the first respondent was having valid driving licence. At the time of accident, Madurai – Kamuthi road was under repair and another road was in bad shape. Caution notice was also placed. Even then the petitioner came in a rash and negligent manner and he invited the accident. The vehicle bearing registration No.TN-67-H-0243 did not involve in the accident. The age, profession and income of the petitioner are all denied.

5. On the side of the claimant, 3 witnesses were examined and 11 documents were marked. On the side of the respondents therein, two witnesses were examined and 2 documents were marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,66,827/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Twenty Seven only) as compensation to be paid by the second respondent therein. Against which, the appellant has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal on the following grounds:

  The Tribunal has failed to consider that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and that there is 22 days delay in lodging the FIR wherein the injured vehicle was mentioned as unidentified. As per the version of the complaint in the FIR, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident was one Seyyathurai Thevar whereas the actual owner of the vehicle is SR & Co. The Tribunal is wrong in deciding that the insured vehicle was the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal failed to appreciate Ex.R1, regarding the cause of accident. The Tribunal cannot expand the initials of the letters ''SR & Co'' as mentioned in the paragraph no.8 of the judgment. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of R.W.1 and Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the name of the owner was different and the Tribunal discussed the ownership in the claim petition. There was no policy coverage for the vehicle.

7. On the s