The court established that the accident was primarily caused by the deceased's negligent conduct in crossing the road, resulting in dismissal of the claim for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award passed in M.A.C.O.P.No.15 of 2018, dated 30.08.2024, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (1^st Additional District Court), Tirunelveli, thereby awarding a compensation to the tune of Rs.20,44,400/- in favour of the claimants.

2.The respondents 1 to 5 filed a claim petition seeking compensation on the ground that on 03.10.2017 at about 10.30 p.m., when the deceased was standing near Velusamy's house at Ramayanpatti on the mud portion of the Tirunelveli-Sankarankovil main road, a mortuary van owned by the appellant bearing Registration No.TN-69-C-1708, was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased. Therefore, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and while he was taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries on the way.

3.On the complaint, the Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli District, registered an F.I.R in Crime No.509 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C.

4.In order to prove their claim, the claimants examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and Exs.P.1 to P.12 were marked. On the side of the appellant and sixth respondent, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked. The Court had marked Exs.X.1 to X.3.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the appellant's vehicle. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation to the tune of Rs.20,44,400/- to the claimants. Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent as appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the first claimant was examined as P.W.1 and she was the one who lodged the complaint. On receipt of the same, the jurisdictional police registered an F.I.R in Crime No.509 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C, which was marked as Ex.P.1. According to the complaint as well as the evidence of P.W.1, when the deceased attempted to cross the road, the driver of the appellant's vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries and died.

7.P.W.1 further stated that after the deceased returned home from his job, she had prepared chicken, which was not prepared well and as such, there was a quarrel between them. Thereafter, the deceased was proceeding to bring the said issue to the Panchayathar (Nattamai) and while attempting to cross the Tirunelveli-Sanakarakovil road, the accident occurred.

8.In order to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1, the claimants examined P.W.2, who claimed to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. He deposed that he saw the accident when the deceased was standing in the mud of the road and the driver of the appellant's vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him. He further stated that he called 108 ambulance service and took the deceased to the Tirunelveli Government Medical College Hospital, where the doctor declared that the deceased was brought dead. Immediately, he informed the wife of the deceased over the phone, namely P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P.1.

9.According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, these two versions are contradictory. If P.W.2's evidence is taken into consideration, the entire registration of the F.I.R and the evidence of P.W.1 become doubtful and the very presence of P.W.1 at the p