Inconsistencies in the tribunal's findings and lack of legally acceptable reasons for exoneration led to the court holding the insurance company liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to modify and refix the award passed in MCOP.No.1179 of 2012 dated 27.04.2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai by and directing the 2nd respondent to pay compensation.)

1. The appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the exoneration of the insurance company by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.1179 of 2012.

2. The claimants have contended that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler driven by the first respondent on 10.03.2012 at about 5.00 p.m. The driver of the vehicle had lost his control due to rash and negligent driving and the deceased and the first respondent were thrown away and sustained injuries. The pillion rider sustained serious head injury and he was initially treated at a private hospital in Madurai and later shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 10.03.2012 where had passed away on 13.04.2012.

3. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and hence, he was treated as a paid patient in Government Hospital. The accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent and uncontrol driving of the first respondent. Since the deceased was in the hospital for nearly a month, they were concentrating to save the life of the deceased person and they did not lodge a complaint immediately. After the death, a complaint was lodged before the police authorities on 13.04.2012 in Crime No.141 of 2012.

4. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Mazdoor in electricity board and he was earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month and had he been alive, he would have got more promotions as wireman and thereafter as foreman. He had further contended that the deceased had left his wife, minor daughter, widowed mother and three younger brothers and one elder brother.According to the claimants, the vehicle belonging to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent insurance company. The claimants prayed for a sum of Rs.32,50,000/- as compensation.

5. The first respondent had filed a counter contending that the deceased was the pillion rider and he was driving the two wheeler at that point of time and due to the fact that he lost control of the vehicle, the accident had taken place. He had further contended that he was having effective and valid driving license at the relevant point of time and the vehicle is insured with the second respondent.

6. The second respondent/insurance company had filed a counter contending that the F.I.R has been lodged belatedly after a period of 32 days from the date of alleged occurance. They have further contended that when the deceased was originally admitted to Vijaya Hospital, Madurai, there is no reference about RTA (Road Traffic Accident) and the vehicle number was also not informed to the hospital authorities. It has been contended that the respondent apprehend that the petitioner and the owner of the two wheeler have colluded with an idea of claiming compensation from the insurance company. The insurance company had further questioned the quantum of compensation.

7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on either side, arrived at a finding that the involvement of the vehicle and the injuries and the death of the deceased person are only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. However, the Tribunal proceeded to give a finding that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R and there is a reference about the bicycle in the involvement of the accident in Exhibit P14 which is the treatment details of Vijaya Hospital. The Tribunal was not inclined to accept the evidence of the first respondent and thereafter, proceeded to hold that the manipulation of the records cannot be ruled out when the parties were not come to the Court with clean hands and specific pleadings.

8. The Tribunal