The court established the liability of the Insurance Company based on the identity of the driver and the reasonableness of the compensation awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer:- Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.432 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Madurai, dated 28.09.2018.)

1. The appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award of the Accident Claims Tribunal, Dindigul in MCOP.No.432 of 2013 primarily on the ground of liability.

2. The claimant is an injured person who had travelled in a TATA ACE Vehicle by the side of the driver as a salesman of an oil store carrying the goods. According to the claimant, the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver by name Manikumar and it got capsized. The claimant got injured in his left shoulder, left wrist and injuries in various parts of the body. The claimant had contended that he was drawing a salary of Rs.12,500/- per month and he prayed for a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The owner of the vehicle namely the first respondent had remained exparte and the insurer had filed a counter contending that the said Manikumar was not on wheel at the time of accident. One Sebastin was the driver at the time of accident who did not possess valid driving license. That apart, an F.I.R has been lodged after a delay of 22 days from the date of accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company had contended that they are not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner.

4. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence, arrived at a finding that the accident had taken place on 18.09.2012 and the F.I.R has been registered on 10.10.2012. Though it is contended on the side of the Insurance Company that one Sebastin was on the wheel when the accident had happened, the Police Authorities had registered the F.I.R as against the Manikumar and he has also been charge sheeted. Thereafter, the said Manikumar has paid the fine in the Court. No proceedings have been initiated by the Insurance Company alleging that there was impersonation. The Tribunal further found that only the said Manikumar was the driver at the time of accident.

5. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal found that the injured claimant had spent a sum of Rs.54,200/- towards medical expenses as per Exhibit P4. The claimant had suffered 15% of permanent disability as per Exhibit P8 and calculating at the rate of Rs.3000/- per percentage, the Tribunal arrived at Rs.45,000/- for the partial permanent disability of the claimant. Though the claimant had claimed Rs.12,500/- as his monthly income, the Tribunal has taken Rs.6000/- as the monthly income and arrived at the compensation based upon the said monthly income and totalling a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was not driven by Manikumar at the time of accident. The vehicle was driven by one Sebastin who did not possess valid driving license. The owner of vehicle namely the first respondent in the claim petition had raised a claim for own damage before the Insurance Company. In the said claim petition, the owner has referred one Sebastin as the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the claimant and the owner of the vehicle have colluded together and they have changed the name of the driver of the vehicle who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant had further contended that the owner of the vehicle had raised a claim for own damage with the Insurance Company indicating that one Sebastin is the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident. However, after the delay of 22 days, an F.I.R has been registered as if one Manikumar is the driver at the time of accident. Therefore, it is highly doubtful whether Sebastin or Manikumar is