The court held that the lack of credible evidence linking the insured vehicle to the accident necessitated the annulment of the Tribunal's award, emphasizing the importance of substantive proof in liability cases.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the award, dated 19/01/2024 passed in MCOP No.138 of 2019 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Court (FTC), Tenkasi, thereby awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.28,86,530/- payable by the appellant herein.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 as claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation for the demise of the husband of the second respondent herein namely Shanmugiah Pandian that on 21/08/2015 at 05.00 pm, when the deceased was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing registration No.TN-84-5739 along with his wife as pillion rider in Thiruchitrambalam road from east to west near Surandai Pond, at that time, a Abey load Auto bearing registration No.TN-72-K-4821 insured with the appellant, driven by the 5^th respondent herein belonging to the 6^th respondent herein came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler and invited the accident. In that process, the rider of the motorcycle namely the deceased sustained grievous injuries, while his wife namely PW1 sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased and his wife were taken to the Government Hospital, Tenkasi, through an Ambulance. Thereafter, both were referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, for further treatment. Once again, they were admitted in the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai and Appollo Hospital, Madurai and on 30/08/2015, the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him. Therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 in the claim petition being the legal heirs of the deceased have filed the claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent filed a counter, which has been adopted by the 2^nd respondent contending that they denied the manner of the accident and the 1^st respondent never drove the vehicle bearing registration No.TN-72-K-4821, on 21/08/2015 and the vehicle never dashed against the two wheeler which was driven by the deceased and no such accident happened. This is a case of hit and run and the petitioners, who were unable to trace the vehicle which caused the accident, had falsely implicated the 2^nd respondent's vehicle after considerable delay as if the 2^nd respondent's vehicle dashed against the two wheeler. In order to get the compensation from the 2^nd respondent and the Insurance Company, the petitioners colluded with the Police Officials and registered FIR containing false allegations. The respondents also denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The compensation amount claimed is excessive and the petitioners are not entitled to get the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The 3^rd respondent Insurance Company filed a separate counter contending that the averments in the claim petition that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent is false. In fact, the deceased attempted to overtake the up going vehicle, but failed and hit against the 2^nd respondent's vehicle. So, the rider of the two wheeler was the sole cause for the accident. Therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. It is further contended that the deceased did not wear a helmet at the time of the accident. Therefore, contributory negligence is to be fixed. They also denied the age a