The evidence presented before the Tribunal should be given more weight than the contents of the First Information Report, and the deposition of a party who did not file a counter cannot be relied upon to dispute the manner of the accident.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree on 13.08.2018 passed in MCOP.No.575 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Subordinate Judge of Dindigul by allowing this appeal.)

1. The Insurance Company has filed the above appeal challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul in MCOP.No. 575 of 2016 primarily on the ground of negligence.

2. According to the claimants, the deceased was traveling in a TVS Super-XL Motor Cycle in Seththumadai road from north to south direction slowly on the left hand side at 11.15 a.m on 10.04.2016. At that time, the Maruthi Omni Car coming from the opposite direction had dashed against the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. An F.I.R was registered in Crime No.192 of 2016 as against the driver of the Maruthi Car. The claimants have prayed for a compensation of Rs.20 lakhs.

3. The owner of the Maruthi Car had remained exparte and the Insurance Company had filed a counter contending that the accident has taken place on the extreme right side of the road and it is a wrong side of the road for the vehicle traveling in north-south direction. Therefore, the entire negligence is only the deceased and hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation. The Insurance Company has also disputed the quantum of compensation as prayed for by the claimants.

4. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence had arrived at a finding that the driver cum owner of the Maruthi Car has been examined as RW2 and he had not specifically stated that the accident has taken place on the western side of the road which would be a wrong side for the vehicle traveling in north-south direction. The Tribunal had further found that the eye witness to the accident has been examined as PW2 who had specifically deposed that the accident has taken place on the eastern side of the road. The said deposition of PW2 has not been shaken in the cross examination by the Insurance Company. Based upon the said findings, the Tribunal concluded that the accident has taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car and proceeded to fix the liability upon the owner of the Maruthi Car and the insurance company jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.10,78,000/-. The said award is under challenge in the present appeal by the Insurance Company.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company had mainly relied upon Exhibit R2-rough sketch and contended that the said rough sketch prepared by the police officials will clearly indicate that the accident had taken place on the extreme west of the road while the two-wheeler was coming on the eastern lane in the north-south direction, He had further contended that the F.I.R has been lodged by one of the relatives of the deceased person and the same is based upon hearsay information and it cannot be relied upon. He had further contended that they have examined the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle who had categorically deposed that the accident has taken place only on the extreme western side of the road and therefore, the insurance company had established the fact that the accident has taken place only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and therefore, the owner of the maruthi car or their insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that one Muthu has been examined as an eye witness on the side of the claimants as PW2 and he had deposed that he is not aware of the number of the offending vehicle and it has been suggested to him that the accident has happened due to the negligence on the part of the deceased person. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, he had contended that though initially the F.I.R was registered as against